Bradley Erickson, set and monitored her work and schedule as he would the work and schedule of a regular employee; that she was required to read and learn protocols and train and teach other personnel; and that she twice submitted to formal employee counseling to resolve conflicts at the laboratory. Rouse also asserts that the Internal Revenue Service advised her that “it appears that [she was] an employee for the purpose of the [Federal Insurance Contributions Act]” while she worked for the Army. Rouse’s argument fails. “[L]ooking to the terms of the statute authorizing [Rouse’s] position ..., we find that Congress did not intend to waive the Government’s sovereign immunity as to [section 2360] participants such as [Rouse].” Daniels v. Browner, 63 F.3d 906, 907 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Section 2360(b) states that students, like
holding that the age discrimination in employment act adea 29 usc  621 et seq was not a valid abrogation of the states sovereign immunity holding under 29 usc  216c holding that a participant in the senior environmental employment program 42 usc  3056 was not an employee under the age discrimi nation in employment act 29 usc  633a holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983 holding that the age discrimination in employment act was not preempted by the nlra