so interrelated that they may be treated as single employer” allowing an employee to “hold two or more nominally separate business entities accountable as a single entity under anti-discrimination laws.” Woodell, 357 F.Supp.2d at 767 (citations and quotation marks omitted). Under the integrated enterprise approach, four factors influence the determination: (1) interrelated operations; (2) common management; (3) centralized control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership, between two entities. Id. Generally, a defendant will be considered an employer “where there is sufficient evidence that a defendant had immediate control over another company’s employees, and even more importantly, over the particular employee alleging discrimination.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted) (<HOLDING>). MetLife had no control over the evaluations
holding it error to admit testimony where among other things there was no evidence that defendants appearance had changed since the time of the robbery holding that a twoyear delay did not bar the motion where there was no demonstration of unfair prejudice holding that there is no first amendment or common law right of access to documents which played no role in a judicial decision holding that a plaintiff had no injury in fact and consequently no standing when it had no enforceable contract right against the defendant holding defendant was not a joint employer because among other things there was no common management no centralized control of daily labor relations and no demonstration that it reviewed or fired defendant or played any role in making those decisions