context: Unlike in the cases cited by USCIRF, GhoriAhmad is not suing on these documents, or basing her claim on any rules or agreements set forth therein. See Prince George's Hasp.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 613 F.2d 833, 833
citation_a.parenthetical: rejecting the district courts "virtually exclusive reliance on the contract language as indicative of appellant's employment status" and requiring review of "all of the circumstances surrounding Spirides' work relationship" in addition to the contract language
citation_a.sentence: See Spirides, 613 F.2d at 833 (rejecting the district courts "virtually exclusive reliance on the contract language as indicative of appellant’s employment status” and requiring review of "all of the circumstances surrounding Spirides' work relationship” in addition to the contract language).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.parenthetical: reviewing benefit plan documents where "plaintiff's entire complaint centers on the retirement benefits that he contends he is entitled to receive"
citation_b.sentence: Ctr. v. Advantage Health Plan, Inc., 865 F.Supp.2d 47, 51 (D.D.C.2012) (permitting consideration of contractual documents that were "central to [plaintiff’s] claims”); In re APA Assessment Fee Litig., 862 F.Supp.2d 1, 8 (D.D.C.2012) (reviewing membership bylaws where "plaintiffs’ claim revolve[d] around whether payment of [a] special assessment was required for membership”); Strumsky v. Washington Post Co., 842 F.Supp.2d 215, 218 (D.D.C.2012) reconsideration denied, 922 F.Supp.2d 96 (D.D.C.2013) (reviewing benefit plan documents where "plaintiff’s entire complaint centers on the retirement benefits that he contends he is entitled to receive”). The Court also notes that even valid, integrated contractual agreements do not conclusively answer the employee/independent contractor question — as Spirides itself held.