Opinion ID: 147782
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Existence of Property Interests

Text: We first address whether plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of continued employment, based on their contracts, surrounding Puerto Rican law, and the facts of the case. We hold that they did. The undisputed facts [1] established that when the Municipality hired plaintiffs, the contracts committed the Municipality to employing plaintiffs for almost a year, through June 30, 2001, though the Municipality knew that the Law 52 grant expired on December 31, 2000, approximately six months into that period. The Municipality also had the power to commit to employing plaintiffs for their full contractual terms, despite the limited duration of the Law 52 funds. Law 52 does not, by its terms, prohibit municipalities from supplementing Law 52 monies with municipal funds, see P.R. Laws. Ann. tit. 29, § 711c, and the Commonwealth's Law 52 agreement with the Municipality here specifically provided that [i]f the Municipality offers to the employees other benefits which are not part of this agreement, the Municipality assumes responsibility therefore and pays them with its funds. Acevedo-Feliciano IV, 447 F.3d at 123. Nor was the Municipality prohibited by law from making this commitment. Indeed, the Autonomous Municipalities Act authorizes the mayor to propose readjustments to the Municipality's general expenses budget when there are anticipated surpluses. See P.R. Laws. Ann. tit. 21, § 4309. Further, it is undisputed that the Municipality acted in ways to confirm plaintiffs' contractual expectations. After the Law 52 funds expired, the Municipality paid plaintiffs for some weeks out of municipal funds, confirming plaintiffs' expectation that their employment would continue under their contracts even after the Law 52 funds expired. This is sufficient to show that plaintiffs had a property interest in continued employment under state law.