employees of the crime lab would be limited-term appointees subject to URI employment rules and practices, the amendments did not alter Wilkinson’s preexisting protected status by rendering his previous crime-lab appointment one that was statutorily specified. We first consider whether, as of 1994, Wilkinson possessed a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment under the merit system. A “state employee who, under state law or rules promulgated by state officials, has a legitimate claim of entitlement to continued employment absent sufficient cause for discharge, may demand the procedural protection of due process.” Lynch v. Gontarz, 120 R.I. 149, 157, 386 A.2d 184, 188 (1978); see also Barber v. Exeter-West Greenwich School Committee, 418 A.2d 13, 19-20 (R.I.1980) (<HOLDING>). The United States Supreme Court has had
holding that a public employee who can be discharged only for cause is entitled to at least some informal due process before he can be terminated holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment holding a tenured state employee has a property right to continued employment and must be accorded due process before serious disciplinary sanctions holding that a tenured teacher who can be dismissed only for good cause has a legitimate claim of entitlement to his or her position and may not be deprived of it without due process of law holding that applicants for welfare benefits had a property interest or legitimate claim of entitlement and were entitled to due process to protect that interest