that Ms. Zinn was an employee of the Department. Though some elements, in isolation and not in accordance with Lam-bertsen, might appear consistent with an employment relationship, no reasonable jury could find an employment relationship existed based on the totality of the circumstances, and summary judgment is thus proper. See Oestman v. Nat’l Farmers Union Ins. Co., 958 F.2d 303, 306 (10th Cir.1992). First, in Lambertsen, we implicitly recognized that though valid penological measures imposed to ensure safety and security within a facility may require a worker to fulfill certain conditions, those conditions do not rise to the level of “control” for purposes of determining a worker’s employment status with the correctional facility itself. See Lambertsen, 79 F.3d at 1026, 1028 (<HOLDING>). Much of the evidence Ms. Zinn cites in an
holding that controlling ingress and egress of worker and requiring that worker abide by rules of conduct within facility is insufficient to establish employment relationship  for title vii purposes holding that the conduct complained of must be an unlawful employment practice under title vii recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii holding that a verbal threat of being fired is not an adverse employment action for purposes of title vii