Labor Ready did not direct or supervise Lomeli’s actions while at Southwest, and there is no evidence that Labor Ready placed conditions or restrictions on Southwest’s use of Lomeli at its facility. See Capps, 784 F.2d at 618. We therefore conclude that while Lomeli worked at Southwest, Labor Ready had “temporarily terminated its relationship” with and had “nominal” control over Lomeli, and, thus, this factor also supports borrowed employee status. See id.; Melancon, 834 F.2d at 1246. 6. Who furnished the tools and place for performance? The fact that the original employer or the employee himself provides some of the equipment used while working at the borrowing employer’s facility does not preclude a finding in favor of borrowed employee status. See Melancon, 834 F.2d at 1246 (<HOLDING>); Velasco v. Amfels, Inc., 368 F.Supp.2d 656,
holding that although beraud provided welding machine and related equipment amoco provided consumables transportation food lodging and place of performance and thus the balance on this factor is in amoeos favor holding that this court does not necessarily require the claim to be specifically raised in an eeoc charge provided that it satisfies this scopeofinvestigation test holding that where law firm had reason to believe that the information provided to it by the company was materially different from the truth firm could not escape liability merely by stating that its opinion was based solely on information provided to it holding that childrens book for which plaintiff provided the text and defendant provided the illustrated photographs was a joint work in which each party owned an undivided ownership and thus neither could be held liable to the other for copyright infringement holding that a defendants guilty plea is not knowingly made and is hence constitutionally invalid and subject to reversal on habeas if it is based upon erroneous sentencing information provided by the judge