With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Exs. AC.] In this same vein, defendants have offered no evidence to refute the Board’s contention that St. Ben’s did not have sufficient net revenue in its operating budget to pay for the broader traveling tuition remission benefit. [Ardolf Supp. Aff., Ex. A-C.] The fact that the two schools are now amalgamated does not support plaintiffs’ assertion that their combined funding was sufficient to support the more generous traveling tuition benefit. While defendants have conceded they are a joint employer for purposes of this motion, their merger for the purpose of faculty hiring and management does not prove they are so entangled that each entity’s assets are now available to the other for any purpose. See NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Indus, of Pa., Inc., 691 F.2d 1117, 1123 (3rd Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Even if an employer can demonstrate a valid

A: recognizing concept of joint employer when separate entities share or eodetermine conditions of employment
B: holding that a company exercising substantial control of the terms and conditions of the work of the employees is an employer under the flsa
C: holding that the joint employer concept recognizes that business entities involved are in fact separate but  they share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment
D: holding that 1 the njcfa applies to corporations and other business entities when they are acting as consumers because business entities are considered a person under the act and no reason exists to treat it differently and 2 to be a consumer in respect to a transaction the business entity must be one who uses the goods and thereby diminishes their economic utility
C.