between projects”); Baker v. Flint Eng’g & Const. Co., 137 F.3d 1436, 1442 (10th Cir.1998) (“Generally speaking, independent contractors often have fixed employment periods and transfer from” place to place as particular work is offered to them, whereas employees usually work for only one employer and such relationship is continuous and of indefinite duration.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 5. The Extent to Which Employees Are Integral to Business Turning to the final factor, the Court does find that drivers were integral to Defendants’ business. Indisputably, Defendants’ business could not function without drivers, and Defendants wisely do not argue to the contrary. (See Defs.’ Mem. 19). See also Ansoumana v. Gristede’s Operating Corp., 255 F.Supp.2d 184, 191-92 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (<HOLDING>). In addition, while Defendants cite Velu and
holding that care of the grounds was part of the business of the hospital holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business holding where the defendants engaged primarily in the business of providing delivery services that onfoot delivery workers constituted an integral part of the  defendants business holding that an individual debtor not engaged in business is eligible for chapter 11 holding interest derived from shortterm notes is an integral part of lone stars business since the surplus finds are produced by that business the investments are shortterm liquid made with the intent that both the principal and interest are to be used in the regular course of the taxpayers trade or business 