Under the single employer theory, two entities are viewed as a single employer for liability and jurisdictional purposes. See Childs v. Local 18, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 719 F.2d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir. 1983); Campbell v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 69 F. Supp. 2d 380, 385 (E.D.N.Y. 1999). To determine whether two entities should be treated as a single employer, we consider whether they have: (1) interrelated operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; (4) common ownership or financial control. Childs, 719 F.2d at 1382. The second element, which is the most important, asks "What entity made the final decisions regarding employment matters related to the person claiming discrimination ?" Campbell, 69 F. Supp. 2d at 385. Other federal cases have found similar circumstances insufficient to demonstrate a single employer. It is insufficient to assert that an international union had control when the trustee made employment decisions and was appointed by the international union. Campbell, 69 F. Supp. 2d at 385. It is insufficient to show that the local union is chartered by the international union. Childs, 719 F.2d at 1382. Moreover, it is insufficient to allege that the international union charters the local union, receives dues from the local, and has the power to dissolve the local, to receive the local's assets, to impose a trusteeship over the local, and to control its affairs. Herman v. United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 971, 60 F.3d 1375, 1383-84 (9th Cir. 1995).