With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and Development, was eliminated by resolution, but that her occupancy of this appointed position was not renewed at the end of her term. 3 . Other courts have recognized the § 1983 First amendment claim despite the defense of elimination of the position by budgetary considerations or legislation, however, they have dismissed the case on summary judgement for failure to meet the burden of proof or on some other basis. See e.g., Laidley v. McClain, 914 F.2d 1386 (10th Cir.1990) (claim of politically motivated discharge of employees of district attorney's office, dismissed against state on 11th Amendment grounds on summary judgment, but remanding case on issue of whether district attorney was entitled to qualified immunity); Dusanenko v. Maloney, 560 F.Supp. 822, 829 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Also in Hollyday v. Rainey, 964 F.2d 1441

A: recognizing first amendment  1983 claim against town for elimination of positions by legislation but dismissing claim on summary judgement for failure to rebut undisputed facts that the actions were motivated at least in part by a genuine concern for the proper operation of the towns business rather than political vindictiveness 
B: holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
C: recognizing a claim for civil liability against municipalities  under  1983
D: recognizing such a claim under  1983
A.