Question: Farlow graduated from law school in 1988 and was employed by Wachovia Bank of North Carolina to represent it. In 1993, Wachovia discussed the possibility of Farlow's working as in-house counsel for Wachovia to handle recovery and bankruptcy cases. On her employment application, Farlow disclosed that she had been convicted of two counts of misdemeanor larceny in 1982. Those convictions made it unlawful for her to become an employee of Wachovia without FDIC approval. Wachovia proceeded with its working relationship with Farlow, who closed her private practice and moved on site with Wachovia. The parties executed a written contract under which Farlow would provide legal services as an independent contractor. Both parties intended that Farlow would not be considered an employee unless the FDIC waiver was obtained. Such a waiver was never sought for Farlow.

Farlow was considered an independent contractor for tax purposes and was never paid a salary by Wachovia but, instead, was paid for the bills she submitted. She received no benefits or compensation for business travel. She used letterhead that designated her simply as an attorney-at-law and did not receive business cards. However, she was provided with on-site office space, support, staff, equipment, and the use of company vehicles. She was paid for continuing education. Wachovia exercised control over the hours in which she had access to her office.

After complaining about a sexually and racially hostile work environment. Farlow was terminated. She filed several claims under Title VII. Was Wachovia Farlow's employer?