WPC X 4*kL mlYau$U{V8UtBZc8rjCaz-t?:%<eM<*.Oٻ_O'=)]" hāUFQ ɉsc/6}֛ٛj)&KGaoAN ϰE-; . `JG#q(((p3$O(O]8h!Ő$Qyh<`-M_$Ã-ՂYH HtY^GE><PD.C18jW\ 5*#L %  0D 0(WUF 0nT N < ^ 5 wA 4E Y h mj E f a N > / b UFbbbj BsUFU@HP LaserJet 5,,,,0X(#$  0  ($.Courier New Regular(d:2fZ$ !    =(s(XXdd=    0    fZ$  =(sc(XXdd=    1    _ThecomplaintalsocontainedclaimsundertheEqual  ProtectionClause,otherfederalstatutes,andPuertoRico'slabor  discriminationlaw(29P.R.LawsAnn.146151).Theseclaims \ falloutsidethecompassofthisinterlocutoryappealandwetake 2 noviewofthem.<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@ 2 fZ$  =(sc(XXdd=    4    _ThereissomeindicationthattheCommissionmayhavebeen  revivifiedin2002.SeeP.R.Reg.No.6384(Jan.25,2002)  (purportingtoresuscitateAct226).Sincethatactivityplainly \ postdatestheeventsatissuehere,weneednotdefinitively 2 resolvethequestionoftheCommission'scurrentstatus.咵0s Bl06Xy File3|xUTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT % fZ$  =(sc(XXdd=    5    _Wehaveheldbefore,andtodayreaffirm,thattheADEAand  TitleVII"stand[]inparipassu"andthat"judicialprecedents  interpretingonesuchstatute[are]instructiveindecisions \ involving[theother]."Serapionv.Martinez,119F.3d982,985 2 (1stCir.1997).- -  fZ$  =(sc(XXdd=    3    _Weconsiderthislessanexceptionandmorearestatementof  therule,astheanalysisfordiscerningadefactoemployment  relationshipmirrorsthecommonlawagencyanalysisinimportant \ respects.See,e.g.,EEOCv.Illinois,69F.3dat17172.It 2 mightbearguedthatatrueexceptionexists,providingfor X liabilityifanentityinterfereswithanindividual'semployment . withanotheremployerinwaysthatviolatetheADEA.Seeid.at   169(discussingthisarguableexceptionintheADEAcontextand   questioningitsvalidity);cf.SibleyMem'lHosp.v.Wilson,488 `  F.2d1338,1341(D.C.Cir.1973)(fashioninginterferenceliability 6   inTitleVIIcontext).Evenifweweretoindulge,forargument's  \  sake,thedubiousassumptionthatthisexceptionexistsinADEA  2  cases,itwouldhavenocurrencyhere.Camachohasnotmaintained   thatheisanemployeeoftheshipownersand,thus,ifheisnotan   employeeoftheAuthority,hemustberegardedasanindependent d  contractor.Consequently,thereisno"prime"employerwithwhom :  theAuthority'sactionsmightbesaidtohaveinterfered.See, `  e.g.,Alexanderv.RushN.ShoreMed.Ctr.,101F.3d487,49192 6 (7thCir.1997).<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular   fZ$  =(sc(XXdd=    2    _PuertoRicoisdeemedastateforADEApurposes.See29  U.S.C.630(i);seealsoRamirezv.P.R.FireServ.,715F.2d694,  696n.2(1stCir.1983). fZ$  =(sc(XXdd=    *    _OftheDistrictofMaine,sittingbydesignation.   ' Moisakis0Moisakis .    d.Courier New Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !     XX)'VUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals  #)XX)'V#)X)XFortheFirstCircuit#)XX)Y##XscXX)X#   A') ` dE< ` A   No.032113 u  @#OSCARCAMACHO, ! q @<< Plaintiff,Appellee,    @tt)v. y  @\ \ PUERTORICOPORTSAUTHORITY, %u  @ Defendant,Appellant. ! A') ` dE<|` A } @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT b @ FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO ^ @  [Hon.JustoArenas,U.S.MagistrateJudge]   A') ` dE<e` A f @'Before K   @@((_Selya_ԀandHoward,CircuitJudges, G and_Singal_, #  *      ׀DistrictJudge.   A') ` dE<N ` A O "       _Lizabel_ԀM._Negr;n_,withwhomJorgeA._Fernndez_Ԅ_Reboredo_and 4!$ Rivera&_Fernndez_Ԅ_Reboredo_,_P.S.C._wereonbrief,forappellant.  "Z%   HarryA._Ezratty_forappellee. "0& *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  b% )b%   SI%!* @38127@SMay21,2004 &!,  RHCr'"-" @38127 @ R(%!.  (  * !   *J&1? _  8scXXdd8*,X` XX* ` SELYA,CircuitJudge. Thisinterlocutoryappealraises  adiscreteandimportantquestion:Cananagency,forpurposesof x theAgeDiscriminationinEmploymentAct(ADEA),29U.S.C.621 $t 634,beregardedastheemployerofthosewhomitlicensesand   regulates?Thecourtbelowansweredthisquestioninthe |  affirmativeand,accordingly,ruledthatthePuertoRicoPorts ( x  Authority(theAuthority)was,forADEApurposes,thedefacto $  employeroftheharborpilotswhomitlicensesandregulates.See   Camachov.P.R.PortsAuth.,254F.Supp.2d220,22728(D.P.R. ,|  2003)(CamachoI). (  ` Whateverthetheoreticalpossibilities,wedonotagree  that,inthecircumstancesofthiscase,adefactoemployment 0 relationshipexists.Thesockdolagerhereisthatthestatutory , powertolicenseandregulateharborpilotsdoesnotimbuethe  Authoritywiththelevelofcontrolnecessarytomakeittheir 4 employerforADEApurposes.Consequently,wereverse. 0  I.BACKGROUND     ` OscarCamachoworkedforovereighteenyearsasaharbor T!" pilotintheportofSanJuan.Allharborpilotsarerequiredto #P$ belicensed,23P.R.LawsAnn.2403,andatalltimesrelevant $& heretotheAuthority"agovernmentinstrumentalityandpublic X&!( corporationwhoseprerogativesincludetheregulationofpilotage (T#*  inPuertoRico'sportsandharbors,id.333,2401"functioned )%, asthelicensingagency.Inthatcapacity,theAuthoritylicensed  Camachotoserveasaharborpilot. \   ` OnJune15,2000,theAuthorityreversedcourseand X summarilyrevokedthelicense.Atthattime,Camachohad   celebratedhisseventiethbirthday,andtheAuthorityacted `  pursuanttoastatuteprovidingthat"[e]verylicenseshall  \  automaticallyexpireonthedateinwhichthepilotreachesseventy   (70)yearsofage."Id.2406. d   ` Camachodidnottaketherevocationlightly.After `  exhaustinghisadministrativeremedies,hesuedtheAuthorityin   theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofPuertoRico. h Inpertinentpart,hiscomplaintallegedthattheAuthorityhad d discriminatedagainsthimonaccountofhisageinviolationofthe  ADEA,specifically,29U.S.C.623(a)(1). #  1       l  ` Section623(a)oftheADEAimposesliabilityonlyon h employers.SeeKimelv.Fla.Bd.ofRegents,528U.S.62,6768  (2000).Seizinguponthislimitation,theAuthoritymovedfor p  summaryjudgmentonthegroundthatitwasnotCamacho's !l" "employer."Camachoobjectedandthepartiesconsentedtoproceed "$  beforeamagistratejudge.See28U.S.C.636(c). t$&  ` ThemagistratejudgerejectedtheAuthority'sposition.   ExaminingtherelationshipbetweentheAuthorityandtheharbor \ pilotsthroughtheprismofcommonlawagency,heconcludedthat X although"harborpilotsarenotemployeesinthetypicalsense,"   thestatutoryschemegivestheAuthoritysuch"widelatitudeto `  controlthedailyactivitiesofharborpilots"astomakethe  \  Authoritythepilots'employerforADEApurposes.CamachoI,254   F.Supp.2dat226;seealsoid.at22728. d   ` Movingtothenextissue,themagistratejudgedeclared `  thatcompulsoryretirementofharborpilotsatageseventywould   violatetheADEAunlessagewasshowntobeabonafide h occupationalqualificationwithintheambitof29U.S.C. d 623(f)(1).Id.at22930.Sincethatentailedadisputedquestion  ofmaterialfact,hedeniedtheAuthority'smotionforsummary l judgmentontheADEAclaim.Id.at230. h  ` Dismayedwiththedenialofitsmotionandwiththe  reasoninguponwhichthatdenialrested,theAuthorityaskedthe p  magistratejudgetocertifyvariousaspectsofhisrulingfor !l" immediateappeal.See28U.S.C.1292(b)(allowing,subjectto "$ certainconditions,interlocutoryreviewofanorderthat"involves t$& acontrollingquestionoflawastowhichthereissubstantial  &p!( groundfordifferenceofopinion"ifitsresolution"maymaterially '#* advancetheultimateterminationofthelitigation").Section x)$, 1292(b)ismeanttobeusedsparingly,andappealsunderitare, $+t&. accordingly,hen'steethrare.Theyrequire,amongotherthings,  leaveofboththetrialandappellatecourts.Seeid.;see \ generally InreSanJuanDupontPlazaHotelFireLitig.,859F.2d X 1007,1010&n.1(1stCir.1988);Heddendorfv.Goldfine(Inre   Heddendorf),263F.2d887,88890(1stCir.1959). `   ` Inthiscase,themagistratejudgegrantedtherequest,  \  notingthattheAuthority'sstatusquaADEAemployerconstitutesan   openquestionandthatthelitigationwouldbenefitfromprompt d  resolutionofthatquestion.Camachov.P.R.PortsAuth.,267F. `  Supp.2d174,178(D.P.R.2003).Sharingthisappraisal,weagreed   toconsiderwhethertheharborpilotscouldbeconsideredemployees h oftheAuthorityforpurposesoftheADEA. d  II.DISCUSSION    ` Wereviewadistrictcourt'srulingsonsummaryjudgment  denovo.Plumleyv.S.Container,Inc.,303F.3d364,369(1st 4 Cir.2002);Garsidev.OscoDrug,Inc.,895F.2d46,48(1stCir. 0 1990).Thefactsthatbearuponthecertifiedquestionare,for   allintentsandpurposes,undisputed.Thus,wemaydecidethe 8!" employmentstatusissueasamatteroflawtotheextentthatthe "4$ undisputedfactspointsofavorablyinonedirectionthata $& factfindercouldnotreasonablyreachtheoppositeconclusion. <&!( AlbertyVelezv.Corporaci;ndeP.R.paralaDifusi;nPublica,361 '8#* F.3d1,7(1stCir.2004).Thisissuchacase. )$,  @+&. @tt) A.    ` TherelevantsectionoftheADEAmakesitunlawful"for x anemployer...todischargeanyindividual...becauseofsuch $t individual'sage."29U.S.C.623(a)(1).Thestatutedefinesan   employerasa"personengagedinanindustryaffectingcommercewho |  hastwentyormoreemployees."Id.630(b).Forthispurpose, ( x  theword"person"includesstateagenciesandinstrumentalities. #  2      ׀ $  Id.Absentacoveredemploymentrelationship,ADEAliabilitydoes   notattach.SeegenerallySpeenv.CrownClothingCorp.,102F.3d ,|  625,629(1stCir.1996)(explainingthattheprophylaxisofthe ( ADEAdoesnotreachindependentcontractors);Frankelv.Bally,  Inc.,987F.2d86,89(2dCir.1993)(same). 0  ` TheAuthoritydoesnotdisputethatitcouldbe , consideredanADEAemployerofthosepersonsithiresandfires.  Itinsists,however,thatitisnotanemployerofharborpilots. 4 Accordingly,thequestioninthiscasereducestowhetherharbor 0 pilots,wholackaconventionalemploymentrelationshipwiththe   Authority,properlymayberegardedastheAuthority'semployees 8!" forADEApurposes.Thestatutorydefinitionofanemployeeas"an "4$ individualemployedbyanyemployer,"id.630(f),iscircular $& and,thus,affordsusscantguidanceinourattempttoanswerthis <&!( question. '8#*  ` Giventheopacityofthestatutorytext,courtshavebeen  forcedtodeveloptheirownapproachestodeterminingwhetheran \ entityisactingasanemployerwithinthepurviewoftheADEA. X Somecourtsattempttoanswerthatquestionbyahybridtestthat   marriestraditionalcommonlawagencyprincipleswiththeeconomic `  realitiesofaparticularrelationship.See,e.g.,Mangramv.Gen.  \  MotorsCorp.,108F.3d61,6263(4thCir.1997);Oestmanv.Nat'l   FarmersUnionIns.Co.,958F.2d303,305(10thCir.1992);Fields d  v.HallsvilleIndep.Sch.Dist.,906F.2d1017,1019(5thCir. `  1990)(percuriam).Thiscourthasrejectedthatapproachand   choseninsteadtoapplycommonlawagencyprinciplessimpliciterin h determiningwhenanemploymentrelationshipexistsforpurposesof d theADEA.SeeSpeen,102F.3dat631;cf.AlbertyVelez,361F.3d  at6(adoptingthesametesttodeterminewhetheranemployment l relationshipexistsforpurposesofTitleVII).Wearenotalone; h severalothercircuitshavemadethesamechoice.See,e.g.,Shah  v.DeaconessHosp.,355F.3d496,499(6thCir.2004);Barnhartv. p  N.Y.LifeIns.Co.,141F.3d1310,1313(9thCir.1998);Frankel, !l" 987F.2dat90.Weadheretothattesthere. "$  ` Thecommonlawagencytestisfamiliar.TheSupreme t$& CourtrestatedthebaselineformulationinNationwideMutual  &p!( InsuranceCo.v.Darden,503U.S.318(1992).There,theCourt '#* positedthat,"[i]ndeterminingwhetherahiredpartyisan x)$, employeeunderthegeneralcommonlawofagency,[aninquiring $+t&. courtshould]considerthehiringparty'srighttocontrolthe  mannerandmeansbywhichtheproductisaccomplished."Id.at \ 323.TheCourtthenelaborated: X 8 ` Amongtheotherfactorsrelevanttothis   inquiryaretheskillrequired;thesourceof   theinstrumentalitiesandtools;thelocation `  ofthework;thedurationoftherelationship 6   betweentheparties;whetherthehiringparty  \  hastherighttoassignadditionalprojectsto  2  thehiredparty;theextentofthehired   party'sdiscretionoverwhenandhowlongto   work;themethodofpayment;thehiredparty's d  roleinhiringandpayingassistants;whether :  theworkispartoftheregularbusinessof `  thehiringparty;whetherthehiringpartyis 6 inbusiness;theprovisionofemployee   benefits;andthetaxtreatmentofthehired  party.h` x` x Id.at32324(quotingCmty.forCreativeNonViolencev.Reid,490 d U.S.730,75152(1989)).Noonefactorisoutcomedeterminative;  rather,alltheincidentsofagivenrelationshipmustbeweighed l inordertoreachaconclusionastowhetherthatrelationshipfits h withintheconfinesoftheemployeremployeetaxonomy.Id.at324.   ` Ofcourse,thiscasepresentsanunusualtwist.Asa p  generalmatter,liabilityundersection623(a)dependsuponthe !l" existenceofadirectemployeremployeerelationship,andnone "$ existshere.Butthereiswhatsomehavecalledanexceptionto t$& thisgeneralruleforanentitythatsoextensivelycontrolsan  &p!( aggrievedparty'semploymentrelationshipastobecomethatparty's '#*  defactoemployer.SeeEEOCv.Illinois,69F.3d167,171(7th x)$, Cir.1995)(Posner,C.J.)(discussingdoctrine). #  3      ׀Weproceed,   therefore,todeterminewhethertheAuthoritycanberegardedas \ thedefactoemployeroftheharborpilots. X @tt) B.     ` TheAuthorityisacreatureofstatute,seePuertoRico |  PortsAuthorityActof1942,23P.R.LawsAnn.331354(as ( x  amended)(creatingtheAuthorityanddescribingitsbroad $  contours),anditwouldseemlogicaltobeginouranalysisofits   righttocontrolharborpilotswiththelegislationdelineatingthe ,|  scopeofitspowers.AlthoughthePortsAuthorityActveststhe ( Authoritywithgeneralpowerto"developandimprove,own,operate,  andmanageanyandalltypesofairandmarinetransportation 0 facilitiesandservices,aswellastoestablishandmanagemass , marinetransportationsystemsin,toandfromtheCommonwealthof  PuertoRico,"id.336,wemustlookelsewhereforaspecific  grantoflicensingandregulatoryauthorityoverpilotageservices. \ Thereissomeuncertaintyaboutwhichlegislativeschemeconfers X thatauthorityforpurposesofthiscase.Afterconsiderablestudy   "andwithsurprisinglylittleassistancefromtheparties"we `  concludethatthecontrollinglegislationistheDockandHarbor  \  Actof1968,23P.R.LawsAnn.21012801.    ` TheDockandHarborActtookeffectonSeptember27, d  1968.Itspecificallyplacespilotageservicesintheharborsof `  PuertoRicoundertheAuthority'scontrol,id.2401,andgrants   theAuthorityapanoplyofpowerstoaccomplishthatmission. h Thoughamendedfromtimetotime,theDockandHarborActremained d largelyintactforthenextthreedecades.   ` OnAugust12,1999,thewatersgrewmurky;onthatdate, l thelegislatureenactedthePuertoRicoHarborPilotageCommission h Act(Act226),1999P.R.Laws226(codifiedat23P.R.LawsAnn.  361361v).Thenewlawwastotakeeffectthirtydaysafter p  passage.ItpurportedtoestablishaHarborPilotageCommission !l" (theCommission)andtovestinthatbodymostofthelicensingand "$ regulatoryfunctionspreviouslyassignedtotheAuthority.See23 t$& P.R.Laws361b.Italsorepealedconflictingprovisionsofthe  &p!( DockandHarborAct.SeeAct226,Preamble&27.Since '#*  Camacho'slicensewasrevokedonJune15,2000"ninemonthsafter x)$, Act226'seffectivedate"thenewlawwouldatfirstblushseemto  apply. \   ` Appearancescanbedeceiving,however"andthemillsof X governmentoftentimesgrindslowly.Thereweredelaysinsetting   uptheCommission,andthesedelaysbecamesointractablethaton `  April11,2000,thelegislatureamendedAct226toprovidethat  \  "untiltheCommissionisestablishedaccordingtotheparametersof   [Act226]...thecodeoflawsandadministrativerulesineffect d  priortotheapprovalof[Act226]regardingthepilotage `  profession,shallbemaintained."2000P.R.Laws66,1.There   isnoevidencethattheCommissionhadbecomeanactualityatany h timematerialhereto.  #  4      ׀Thus,theDockandHarborActcontrolsthe d eventsatissuehere.Weproceedaccordingly.  @tt) C.  l  ` TheDockandHarborActgivestheAuthoritycontrolover 4 "thenavigationand...marinetradeinnavigablewatersof 0 PuertoRicoinitsharborsanddocks."Id.2201.This   suzeraintyextendstopilotageservicesthroughoutPuertoRico. 8!" Id.2401.Pertinently,theDockandHarborActcedestothe "4$ Authorityexplicitpowertoissue,renew,suspendandrevokeharbor $& pilots'licenses,id.2403,2406,2407;tolimitlicensesto <&!( certainports,id.2403;tofineorotherwisedisciplinepilots  forimproperconduct,id.2409;andtofixratesforpilotage \ services,id.2414. X  ` TheregulationspromulgatedbytheAuthoritypursuantto   theDockandHarborActarealsorelevanttoourinquiry.Among `  otherthings,theseregulationssetoutcertainstandardprocedures  \  toguidepilotsinboardingandtakingcommandofships.SeeP.R.   Reg.No.4286,3032(Sept.2,1990).Forexample,pilotsare d  directedtoboardoutsidetheharbor,identifythemselves,present `  appropriatepapers,discussthevessel'sspecificationswiththe   master,andfollowtheapplicabletrafficrulesgoverningnavigable h waters. d  ` Thereisanotherpointthatmaybearontheissue.In  1988, theAuthority,actinginconjunctionwithrepresentativesof l boththeharborpilotsandatradeassociationcomposedofshipping h interests,establishedaretirementplan(thePlan)forthebenefit  oftheharborpilots.ThePlanisfundedentirelybyshipowners' p  contributions,atratesdeterminedbytheAuthority.ThePlanis !l" qualifiedundertheEmployeeRetirementIncomeSecurityAct "$ (ERISA),29U.S.C.10011461,andisadministeredbyagoverning t$& boardthatincludesappointeesoftheAuthority,theharborpilots,  &p!( andtheshipowners. '#*  ` Althoughpilotageisaheavilyregulatedprofession, x)$, harborpilotsnonethelessretainimportantbadgesofautonomy. $+t&. Pilotsarehighlyskilledentrepreneurswhothemselvesprovidethe  training,tools,andinstrumentsneededtoperformtheirwork;they \ ownandmaintaintheirownlaunchesandequipment;theysettheir X ownschedulesforworkingwatches;theychoosetheroutesthat   shipsundertheirtutelagewilltake;andtheyarepaiddirectlyby `  theshipowners.Moreover,harborpilotscarryouttheirworkon  \  boardtheshipowners'vessels,notatsitesmaintainedbythe   Authority.Andalthoughtheyaresubjecttosomestrictures d  consistentwithPuertoRico'spolicepower"specifically,the `  Commonwealth'sinterestinensuringsafeandefficientnautical   operationsinitsportsandharbors"theyexerciseconsiderable h discretioninthemodeandmannerinwhichtheyperformtheir d duties.   ` Camacho,hawkingtheregulations,suggeststhatthe l Authorityexercisesanunusuallyhighlevelofcontroloverthe h pilots'daytodayactivities.Inourview,theregulationsfall  farshortofevincingthedegreeofcontrolandsupervision p  traditionallyconsideredsufficienttocreateanemployeremployee !l" relationship.Asdescribedabove,theregulationsdirectpilotsto "$ boardthreemilesoutsideoftheharbor,identifythemselves, t$& presentappropriatepapers,anddiscusstheship'scapabilities  &p!( withthecaptain.P.R.Reg.No.4286,30.Thesedirections '#* merelyestablishaframework,consistentwiththeprudentexercise x)$, oftheCommonwealth'spolicepower,fortherenditionofpilotage $+t&. services"muchas,say,astatesupremecourtmightestablisha  frameworkforthepracticeoflaw(e.g.,alawyermustmaintainan \ officeinthejurisdiction,prominentlydisplayhisorherdiploma X andbaradmissioncertificate,anddiscusspastexperienceandfees   candidlywithpotentialclients).Withinthesebroadparameters, `  eachpilotremainsfreetoguidevesselsusinghisorherskilland  \  discretion(justaseachattorneyremainsfreetocounselclients   usinghisorherskillanddiscretion).Thereisnoevidence d  suggestingthattheAuthoritysuperintendsorotherwiseattemptsto `  controlthepilot'sactionsonthebridge.Theabsenceofthat   degreeofcontroldefeatsCamacho'sargument.Cf.Ostv.W. h SuburbanTravelersLimousine,Inc.,88F.3d435,438(7thCir. d 1996)(holdingthatdispatcherdoesnot"control"thedetailsof  limousinedriver'sworkforTitleVIIpurposeswheredriver l providesherownvehicle,choosesherownroute,andispaid h directlybyherpassenger,eventhoughdispatchersetsratesand  influencesschedules). p   ` TheAuthority'srealworldroleconfirmsthisintuition. !l" Inpractice,itsimplydoesnotactlikeanemployervisvisthe "$ harborpilots.Afterall,itdoesnothireorfireharborpilots, t$& withholdsnotaxesfromtheirearnings(whichcomewhollyfromthe  &p!( shipowners),paysnoF.I.C.A.premiums,carriesnoworkers' '#* compensationinsurancereferabletothem,affordsthemnopaid x)$, vacationsorotherfringebenefits,andfurnishesthemnogear.To $+t&. cinchmatters,theAuthorityisnotengagedeitherinselling  pilotageservicesorincontractingwithotherstomakesuch \ servicesavailable.Theseattributesmilitatestronglyagainsta X findingthattheAuthorityfunctionsasthedefactoemployerof   theharborpilots.  `   ` ThattheAuthorityadministersafundforthepilots'  \  benefitdoesnotalterthisconclusion.Whenanentityestablishes   andcontributestoafundforanother'sbenefit,courtsoften d  mentionthatactivityasahallmarkofanemploymentrelationship. `  See,e.g.,Barnhart,141F.3dat1313.Thatisnotthesituation   here. h  ` InestablishingthePlan,theAuthorityactedasa d middleman,herdingshipownersandharborpilotsintoa  collaborativeeffort.IthasnevercontributedtothePlan, l leavingthatobligationexclusivelytotheshipowners.Andwhile h theAuthorityappointssomemembersoftheboardchargedwith  administeringthePlan,sodothepilotsandtheshipowners. p   ` Inallevents,oneswallowdoesnotasummermake,see !l" Aristotle,NicomacheanEthics,vol.1,ch.7, andtheAuthority's "$ purelyministerialactionswithrespecttothePlan's t$& administrationarenotenough,ontheirown,tojustifytreatingit  &p!( asthepilots'defactoemployerforADEApurposes.Seeid.;Ehret '#* v.Louisiana,862F.Supp.1546,1550(E.D.La.1992);seealso x)$, Darden,503U.S.at324(notingthatnoonefactoristobegiven $+t&. determinativeweight);cf.Dykesv.DePuy,Inc.,140F.3d31,39  (1stCir.1998)(holding,inERISAcontext,thattheavailability \ ofaretirementcompensationprogram"subjecttocertainvesting X requirements"wasinsufficienttoovercomeotherindiciaof   independentcontractorstatus). `   ` Theshortofthematteristhattheharborpilots  \  functionasindependentcontractorsandtheAuthority'srolevis   vistheharborpilotscanbestbedescribedasthatofalicensing d  andregulatoryagencyoverseeingindependentcontractorsina `  heavilyregulatedindustry.SeeProf'lPilotsFed'nv.FAA,118   F.3d758,763(D.C.Cir.1997)(holdingthattheFAAactsasa h regulator,notanemployer,ofpilotsforADEApurposes).Insofar d astheDardenfactorsapplyinthissituation,theoverwhelming  weightofthosefactorssupportsthisresult.Accordingly,wehold l thattheharborpilotsarenotemployeesoftheAuthorityforADEA h purposes.SeeEhret,862F.Supp.at155051(holdingthatneither  pilotassociationnorstatelicensingboardisanemployerofriver p  pilotsundertheADEA);EEOCv.WaterfrontComm'nofN.Y.Harbor, !l" 665F.Supp.197,199200(S.D.N.Y.1987)(holdingthatstate "$ licensingcommissionisnottheADEAemployerofpierguards);see t$& alsoNat'lOrg.forWomenv.WaterfrontComm'nofN.Y.Harbor,468  &p!( F.Supp.317,320(S.D.N.Y.1979)(holdingthatstatelicensing '#* commissionisnotanemployerunderTitleVIIforeither x)$, longshoremenorcargocheckers). $+t&.  ` Thisholdingisinlinewithourpriorprecedents.We  previouslyruled,inanegligencecase,thattheAuthoritycould \ notbeheldliableforapilot'scarelessnessonarespondeat X superiortheory.SeeP.R.PortsAuth.v.M/VManhattanPrince,897   F.2d1,12(1stCir.1990).Implicitinthisholdingisthe `  determinationthat,asalicensingandregulatorybody,the  \  Authoritydoesnotexercisethetypeofcontroloverharborpilots   thatwouldbeneededtoqualifyitastheiremployerundercommon d  lawagencyprinciples.Seeid.(observingthattheAuthority's `  "functionsarerelatedtolicensingandthecompetencyofpilots"   andthatit"actslikeapublicservicecommission,settingand h enforcingthestandardswithintheindustry")(citationand d internalquotationmarksomitted);seealsoRoyalCaribbeanCorp.  v.P.R.PortsAuth.,973F.2d8,12(1stCir.1992)(distinguishing l theAuthority'sregulatoryroleinoverseeingpilotservicesfrom h itsproprietaryroleinmaintainingpierareas).    ` Ourholdingalsojibeswithalonglineofcasesstanding p  fortheproposition,undereithertheADEAorTitleVII,thatstate !l" licensingandregulatoryagenciesgenerallyarenotregardedas "$ employersvisvisthosewhomtheylicenseandregulate. #  5      ׀See, t$& e.g.,Fields,906F.2dat1020;Georgev.N.J.Bd.ofVeterinary  &p!( Med.Exam'rs,794F.2d113,114(3dCir.1986);Haddockv.Bd.of  DentalExam'rs,777F.2d462,464(9thCir.1985).Butcf.Ass'n \ ofMexicanAm.Educatorsv.California,231F.3d572,58284(9th X Cir.2000)(enbanc)(holdingthatstateagencycouldbeheld   liableunderTitleVIIforitsquasiproprietaryroleinrequiring `  andimplementingteachercertificationexamination,evenwithouta  \  directemploymentrelationship).Whileastatelicensingand   regulatoryagencymayqualifyasanemployerofthoseindividuals d  ithiresandsupervisestofulfillitsstatutorymission,see29 `  U.S.C.630(b)(expresslyincluding"anyagencyorinstrumentality   ofaStateorapoliticalsubdivisionofaState"inthedefinition h ofanADEAemployer),theagencydoesnotbecomeanemployerof d thoseindividualswhomitneitherhires,compensates,nor  supervisesdaytodayeventhoughitlicensesandregulatesthem. l SeeFields,906F.2dat1020;Haddock,777F.2dat464.Tohold h otherwisewouldrequireustorewritetheADEAdespitetheutter  absenceofanyhintthatCongressintendedtoextendliabilityto p  stateagenciesthatmerelyexerciselicensingandregulatory !l" authoritypursuanttoastate'spolicepower.Werefusetostart "$ downsoslipperyaslope.  t$&  III.CONCLUSION   &p!(  ` Weneedgonofurther.Becausethelowercourterredin '8#* holdingthattheAuthorityisadefactoemployeroftheharbor )$, pilots,Camacho'sADEAclaimnecessarilyfounders.Wetherefore @+&. answerthecertifiedquestioninthenegative,reversethedecision  ofthemagistratejudge,andremandforfurtherproceedingswith \ respecttotheotherissuesraisedbyCamacho'scomplaint.See X supranote1.    Reversedandremanded.