[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]









                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                         ____________________

No. 97-1770



                       EDDIE DOMINGUEZ, ET AL.,



                        Plaintiffs Appellants,



                                  v.



                 ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,



                        Defendants, Appellees.



                        ______________________





             APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



            [Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]



                         ____________________



                                Before





                         Selya, Circuit Judge,



                    Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,



                      and Boudin, Circuit Judge.



                         ____________________



    Rosa M. Nogueras De Gonzalez for appellant.

    Carl Schuster, with whom Maria Santiago De Vidal, Anabel Rodriguez

Alonso, and Schuster Usera Aguilo & Santiago were on brief for

appellees.



                         ____________________

                             March 6, 1998

                         ____________________           Per Curiam.  Having reviewed the parties briefs, read

    the record, and heard argument, we affirm the judgment of the

    district court essentially for the same reasons as are set out

    in the court's comprehensive opinion.  See Dominguez v. Eli

    Lilly & Co., 958 F. Supp. 721 (D.P.R. 1997).  Viewing the

    record in the light most favorable to appellants, we, like the

    court below, can find no genuine issue of material fact

    concerning whether appellants were constructively discharged. 

    See Vega v. Kodak Caribbean, Ltd., 3 F.3d 476, 479 (1st Cir.

    1993).

             Appellants assert on appeal that the district court

    gave undue emphasis to the Puerto Rico district court's "anti-

    ferret" rule, D.P.R. R. 311.12, rather than following Federal

    Rule of Civil Procedure 56's requirement to evaluate all the

    record evidence.  However, we see nothing inconsistent with

    Rule 56 in the requirements contained in the anti-ferret rule,

    and the court's reference to it.  Moreover, in the alternative,

    the district court grounded its decision upon a reading of the

    full record, which it analyzed extensively and accurately.

             We find no merit in appellants' claim that the

    district court erroneously relied upon hearsay contained in the

    affidavit of Ricardo Flores Borgos.  Appellants overstate both

    the hearsay nature of the affidavit and the importance of the

    alleged hearsay to the outcome of the case.  In ruling on

    appellants' Rule 60(b) motion, the district court denied that

    it had relied at all on the contested sections of the

    affidavit.  We discern no factual issue in this record.

             Affirmed.  Costs to appellees.