1. Whether a federal court interpreting a state statute can conclude that it grants the state agency discretion such that the "ministerial exception" to qualified immunity does not apply, where the highest court of the state concluded that the statute in question imposed a "mandatory, non-discretionary duty" on the agency to follow its mandates and that doing so was purely a ministerial act?

2. Whether a federal court interpreting a state statute can find that the law governing employees' property right—defined by state law—in prevailing wages was not "clearly established" at the time of the violation where the highest court of the state concluded that it was?

Whether a federal court interpreting a state statute can conclude that it grants the state agency discretion such that the 'ministerial exception' to qualified immunity does not apply, where the highest court of the state concluded that the statute in question imposed a 'mandatory, non-discretionary duty' on the agency to follow its mandates and that doing so was purely a ministerial act?