The record showed that Bluestein was a full partner, shareholder and board member and: (1) had equal right to vote on all matters before board; (2) shared equally in defendant’s profits/liabilities; (3) participated in hiring and firing decisions; and (4) had equal right to influence defendant’s workplace policies.
Thus, Bluestein was an “employer” rather than an “employee” under the relevant Acts, and therefore was not eligible for protection under those Acts.
The fact that Bluestein was outvoted on various issues, including her own termination, did not diminish her rights as an "employer" and not require different result.