access to other hospital facilities was not relevant to Title VII Pao, 547 F.Supp. at 494. 28 . In Pao the court placed the word "employers” within quotation marks, thus indicating that a common law employment relationship is not required between the physician and her patients. Indeed we note that the common law independent contractor/employee test is often not applied to antidiscrimination legislation, because "it is considered inconsistent with the remedial purposes behind such legislation.” Mares v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 1066, 1067 n. 1 (5th Cir.1985) (citing cases). Instead, other, less restrictive tests such as the “economic realities” test or a hybrid of that test are used. See id. (citing cases using these other tests); see also EEOC v. Dowd & Dowd, Ltd., 736 F.2d 1177 (7th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). We note that a later case involving a motion
holding that economic loss rule precludes recovery of economic damages only in the absence of personal injury or property  damage claims recognizing the economic realities test holding that the fact that the defendant maintained employment records was insufficient to establish that she was a joint employer under the economic reality test holding that subject to certain exceptions the economic loss rule bars recovery in tort for economic damages arising out of matters governed by contract holding that an asylum applicant must show at least a deliberate imposition of a substantial economic disadvantage in order for the harm to constitute economic persecution