Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751-52, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989) (citing Restatement (Second) of Agency § 220(2) (1958))). “In weighing these factors, ‘all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed with no one factor being decisive.’ ” Lerohl, 322 F.3d at 489 (quoting Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 324, 112 S.Ct. 1344, 117 L.Ed.2d 581 (1992)). “The district court may properly consider economic aspects of the parties’ relationship.” Id. (citing Wilde v. County of Kandiyohi, 15 F.3d 103, 106 (8th Cir.1994)). Appellant argues that RCRH exercised a heightened level of control over Dr. Wojewski to such an extent that he was an employee for ADA purposes. Appellant contends that the terms of the 2003 Le 9, 805-06 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Cilecek, 115 at 262; Alexander v. Rush N.
holding that anesthesiologist whose staff privileges were terminated was not a hospital employee and thus could not bring suit under either the age discrimination in employment act or title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 holding that title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 provides the exclusive remedy for claims of employment discrimination by federal agencies holding that congress intended for idea to be interpreted consistent with fee provisions of statutes such as title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 holding that physician was an independent contractor and thus could not sue hospital under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 holding that physician with staff privileges is not an employee and thus cannot bring claim under title vii of 1964 civil rights act