With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that he did not follow a Bloomington Police Department procedure for making the transition from lethal to less-lethal ammunition. Because there was no discretion involved in loading less-lethal ammunition and because a narrow standard on how to load less-lethal ammunition existed, we conclude that Officer Duerksen was performing a ministerial duty and is not entitled to the protection of official immunity from civil liability. When a public official is entitled to official immunity, a municipal employer is often extended vicarious official immunity also. See id. at 42. But when, as here, we conclude that the official (Officer Duerk-sen) is not entitled to official immunity, vicarious official immunity will not protect respondent City of Bloomington. See Wiederholt, 581 N.W.2d at 316 (<HOLDING>). We therefore reverse the district court’s

A: holding that attorney who was retained by city to assist in conducting official investigation into firefighters potential wrongdoing was entitled to qualified immunity in firefighters  1983 claim because official investigation of state employee was activity of the type entitled to qualified immunity
B: holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
C: holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity
D: holding that if official has violated clearly established law he is entitled to qualified immunity only if reasonable official could have believed conduct was lawful
C.