order against lab-director Hilliard, preventing him from taking any adverse ac y' interest * * * if there are such rules or mutually explicit understandings that support his claim of entitlement to the benefit * * Id. at 601, 92 S.Ct. at 2699, 33 L.Ed.2d at 580. 12 . As unclassified employees, the state police "serve[ ] at the pleasure of [their] appointing authority.” Blanchette v. Stone, 591 A.2d 785, 787 (R.I.1991). Therefore, they do not receive the benefits of classified employees. 13 . The distinction between a claimant’s potential eligibility for a statutory benefit and actually qualifying to receive it for purposes of establishing a vested properly interest or contractual right in the benefit was also dis-positive in D. Corso Excavating, Inc. v. Poulin, 747 A.2d 994 (R.I.2000) (<HOLDING>) and Retired Adjunct Professors v. Almond, 690
holding that the claims to a statutory benefit had not yet vested when the legislature eliminated the benefit holding that an eic was neither a social security benefit nor a local public assistance benefit holding that elimination of a future expected benefit that has not yet accrued does not constitute an erisa violation holding that it is improper for a trustee to liquidate claims that benefit only select creditors with the only benefit to the estate being the recoupment of administrative costs holding that a plantshutdown benefit is not an optional form of benefit