employer can be deemed “employees” under the statute. See O’Connor v. Davis, 126 F.3d 112, 115-16 (2nd Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 1048, 140 L.Ed.2d 112 (1998) (“Where no financial benefit is obtained by the purported employee from the employer, no plausible employment relationship of any sort can be said to exist because ... compensation ... is an essential condition to the existence of an employer-employee relationship.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)); see also Haavistola v. Community Fire Co., 6 F.3d 211, 221-22 (4th Cir.1993) (reversing a grant of summary judgment for employer because question of whether benefits provided to plaintiff were sufficient “compensation” to render plaintiff an employee was one of disputed fact); cf. McClure, 460 F.2d at 557 (<HOLDING>). Congress did not intend Title VII to protect
holding that an employee who was terminated after his fiancee filed a charge of discrimination had standing to sue employer for retaliation where his fiancee was employed by the same company holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added holding that an application is  pending from the time it is first filed  emphasis added holding that an injury occurring in a parking lot which was leased but not controlled by an employer was compensable because the employer instructed its employees to park in that lot holding that an individual who was selected employed controlled trained and paid  by the employer was an employee emphasis added