DATE:  September 13, 1994
CASE NO. 91-WPC-1


IN THE MATTER OF 

JAMES L. SEDA

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

WHEAT RIDGE SANITATION DISTRICT

          RESPONDENT.


CASE NO. 91-WPC-2

JEFF WALTERS

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

WHEAT RIDGE SANITATION DISTRICT

          RESPONDENT.


CASE NO. 91-WPC-3

PHILLIP J. WATHIER

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

WHEAT RIDGE SANITATION DISTRICT

          RESPONDENT.



[PAGE 2]
BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                         FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

     The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) submitted a Recommended
Decision and Order (R. D. and O.) in these consolidated cases
arising under the employee protection provision of the Water
Pollution Control Act, (the Act) 33 U.S.C. § 1367 (1988),
finding that Complainants did not carry their burden of proving
that Respondent discriminated against them for contacts with the
Environmental Protection Agency about violations of the Act at
Respondent's water treatment plant and falsification of 
records. [1]   The record in this case has been reviewed and I
find that it fully supports the ALJ's findings and conclusions.
     This case turns almost entirely on its facts and in
particular on the credibility of key witnesses for the parties,
including the Complainants, representatives of an outside
contractor engaged to supervise the Complainants, and members of
the Board of Directors of Respondent.  The ALJ made numerous,
specific findings of fact based on the testimony of Respondent's
witnesses which he credited over that of Complainants.  R. D. and
O. at 16-22.  Although I am not bound by the credibility
determinations of the ALJ, these findings must be considered in
light of "the consistency and inherent probability of testimony,"
Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 496 (1951),
and are entitled to weight because the ALJ "'sees the witnesses
and hears them testify . . . .'"  Pogue v. U.S. Dept of
Labor, 940 F.2d 1287, 1289 (quoting NLRB v. Walter Mfg.
Co., 269 U.S. 404, 408 (1962)). 
     With the exception of one point noted in the margin, I adopt
the ALJ's R. D. and O. in its entirety and, accordingly, the
complaints in these cases are DISMISSED. [2] 
     SO ORDERED.


               ROBERT B. REICH
                Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.








[ENDNOTES]
           
[1]   Respondent entered into a settlement with one of the
Complainants, James L. Seda, and I approved that settlement on
Jan. 13, 1994.  Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case,
Jan. 13, 1994.  Nothing in the Order issued today shall affect
the finality of that settlement.

[2]   The ALJ held that because Complainants here were laid off
some eight months after their protected activity, that adverse
action "was not in close proximity to the protected activity,"
citing Couty v. Dole, 886 F.2d 147, 148 (8th Cir. 1989). 
R. D. and O. at 16 and n.8.  Although it does not affect the
outcome in this case, I note that in some circumstances an
adverse action following protected activity by eight months can
give rise to an inference of retaliation.  Compare
Goldstein v. Ebasco Constructors, Inc., Case No. 86-ERA-
36, Sec'y. Dec. Apr. 7, 1992, slip op. at 11-12, rev'd on
other grounds sub nom Ebasco Constructors, Inc. v.
Martin, No. 92-4576 (5th Cir. Feb. 19, 1993) (seven to eight
months between last protected activity and adverse actions),
with Burrus v. United Tel. Co. of Kansas, 683 F.2d
339, 343 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 459 U.S. 1071
(1982) (three year gap between protected activity and adverse
action too long to raise inference of retaliation).