it is at best neutral. The Sales Agreement did confer authority upon JCI to control the products Travid sold and where Travid sold such products. But, this authority is not of concern to the Court here because it does not reflect day-to-day employee duties. There is some evidence that Plaintiff took instruction on occasion from JCI employees. This instruction seems discrete and does not evidence any significant control over Plaintiffs work. Moreover, the confidentiality provision is likewise of little import here. It does not significantly affect Plaintiffs day-to-day activities. At bottom, there is simply insufficient evidence that JCI had any significant control over employees’ conduct at Travid. See Cella v. Villanova Univ., No. 01-7181, 2003 WL 329147, at *8 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 3, 2003) (<HOLDING>); Zarnoski v. Hearst Bus. Commc’ns, Inc., No.
recognizing ability of one or more joint tortfeasors to settle on behalf of themselves and another joint tortfeasor and then pursue that joint tortfeasor for its share of the settlement payment holding no joint employer status despite some isolated incidents of supervision holding that simple teasing  offhand comments isolated incidents unless extremely serious are not discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment holding that to meet his burden the plaintiff must show more than a few isolated incidents and that evidence solely of sporadic discrimination does not suffice holding that the rights conferred to a joint account holder by massachusetts statutes and case law in fact give a joint account holder legal title in a joint account