DATE:  June 4, 1992
CASE NO. 85-WPC-2


IN THE MATTER OF

JOSEPH GUTTMAN,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

PASSAIC VALLEY SEWERAGE
COMMISSIONERS,

          RESPONDENT.


BEFORE:  THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                            ORDER DENYING STAY
     Respondent has filed an application for an administrative
stay pending review by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit of the March 13, 1992, Final Decision and Order
(F.D. and O.) issued in this case.  The F.D. and O. held that
Respondent discriminatorily discharged Complainant in violation
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367
(1988), and, as authorized under the statute, ordered Respondent
to reinstate Complainant and to pay him back pay with interest. 
Upon consideration, I do not find that justice requires that I
grant a stay of the F.D. and O. and, therefore, the application
is denied.  5 U.S.C. § 705 (1988).
      Respondent's application raises no more than a possibility
that it will succeed on the merits and alleges harm only in that
it will sustain the financial costs and burden of employing
Complainant during the pendancy of the appeal.  Neither a mere
possibility of success on appeal nor certain economic loss in the
interim is sufficient to warrant a stay.  See Instant
Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 800-
01 (3d Cir. 1989); State of Ohio ex rel. Celebrezze v.
NRC, 812 F.2d 288, 290 
[PAGE 2]
(6th Cir. 1987); Rexroat v. City of New Albany, Indiana,
Case No. 85-WPC-3, Sec. Order Denying Stay, Oct. 6, 1986, slip
op. at 2-3; see also Spinner v. Yellow Freight
System, Inc., Case No. 90-STA-17, Sec. Order Denying
Application for Stay, Sept. 25, 1991, slip op. at 5, citing
Commonwealth-Lord Joint Venture v. Donovan, 724 F.2d 67,
68 (7th Cir. 1983); OFCCP v. University of North
Carolina, Case No. 84-OFC-20, Sec. Order Denying Stay, Apr.
25, 1989, slip op. at 7, citing Virginia Petroleum Jobbers
Ass'n v. Federal Power Comm'n, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir.
1958).  I have also considered these factors in conjunction with
the prospect of harm to others which could result from a stay and
the public interest at stake here and am convinced further that a
stay is not justified, given the potential harm to Complainant
and the public interest in administration and enforcement of the
FWPCA.
     Accordingly, Respondent's application for a stay of my 
March 13, 1992, Final Decision and Order IS DENIED.
     SO ORDERED.


                       LYNN MARTIN 
                       Secretary of Labor

Washington D.C.