With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". text infra, thus wiping the slate clean. Second, the district court seems to have grounded its denial of brevis disposition vis-á-vis the five plaintiffs who did not seek renewal of their Law 52 contracts on its property interest holding. Because that rationale is insupportable, the status of these five plaintiffs will have to be reexamined by the district court. 5 . This determination in no way alters the First Amendment analysis. Public employees can never be fired in violation of their First Amendment rights. "Thus, the fact that a transitory employee does not have a reasonable expectation of renewal in his or her employment ... does not defeat a First Amendment claim.” Nieves-Villanueva, 133 F.3d at 98; accord Cheveras Pacheco v. Rivera Gonzalez, 809 F.2d 125, 127-29 (1st Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). 6 . There is good reason to believe that

A: holding that transitory employees are entitled to protection under the elrodbranti line of cases
B: holding that probation department employees are not county employees
C: holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii
D: holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause
A.