district court heard and failing to find any genuine dispute as to material fact and the factual errors in the opinion below lead to erroneous legal conclusions affecting elvie's claim under the  ministerial do b on the part of school officials to perform that accent are described in the policies and the reason it up it affects the mh are a claim is that it goes to the district's knowledge or one of the elements is that the victim is subject to unwanted sexual harassment and that the harassment is that her gender as a contributed factor in the harassment and so it would be actions don't have to be cause the part of the policy i want to point out that how the c j t b is the is the policy at issue here and that it has various portions and and different sections there is a specific portion of it about early dismissals and part of what i think where i think the court below erred was in relying on parts of the policy other than the early dismissal part but the early dismissal part specifically says that any person requesting the release of the student present proper identification prior to the release of that student it also says that telephone requests for early dismissal of a student shall be honored only if the caller can be positively identified as the student's parent regard and the rd part of the early dismissal policy that students will only be released to the parent guardian or designate of the parent or guardian or to other individuals or agency is permitted or required by law and so the legal error and in the opinion below as it effects the  individual you are talking about the implicate implementation of that particular policy and whether it's a discretionary add to that misunderstand your argument no you didn't jerk and so if you look at what the principal was doing even in this case it was it was pro principle adjourns had his responsibility how did was that not discretionary in developing developing these individual policies that that then he delegated to other folks to carry out how was his action not discretionary so the he was the sponsor of all to make sure that students were not released to telephone callers without without the caller being positive duties and so so i don't know that the principal could argue well you know i could have discretion to establish some other policy once the policies were written and promulgated there were just no no discretion there if the question direct prior approval and knowledge of the building principal or designee and so again you have the district putting a specific ministerial duty on the principal which which was violated in this case and  so i want to dig more into the middest ministerial duty there's a case that i cited in my brief versus lee's summit and that involved the case where a studios were playing softball in p e there was a district policy that said that when protective equipment is provided all persons are required to use the equipment as directed and the p c teacher said that anyone playing capture a must must wear a face mask and then the teacher had a volunteer kind of missouri found no official immunity in that case because because the cancer is mass requirement imposed a ministerial duty and the reason the important part of that analysis that i want to point out to the court is that that opinion and knowledge that that the volunteer supervision of the softball game did involve some discretion however it was the catchers mask requirement that was mandatory and created a ministerial duty so i think that's trigger these mandatory policies which which gave rise to ministerial duties are such that the individual defendants cannot claim official immunity skates and  matters is that once the right to sue letter was issued we had ninety days to bring suit and we met that requirement there was defense argued about whether the whether the complaint had been and nd sexually abuse by this cousin yes they did just to us i mean all the district had to do were all the the school staff had to do was to apply its policies and require proper identification of the caller and  r testified in a way that was not rebutted that you know he was never asked a question and would not have been able to answer any of the questions that he would have been asked and so so between the failure to implement the policies and the  testimony on record the district wouldn't have known of the identity of the caller d if it had simply implemented its policies which should should have been simple enough so i would like to preserve the remainder of my time for a bottle if  high school uses discretion that on a slightly different policy to allow students to be excused over the phone because it still can drive a parent as i would have to go to school a person submitted paperwork and then have that person leave a car and and i understand is not in this case but that type of implementation is more ministerial than the discretionary act of developing that policy with the ministerial tests if there are a maybe a doesn't make any difference common sense will tell us the reason that policy was created was to prevent us judith who you know might have that at sixteen years old think you know she can make that decision for making that bad decision i mean that that is that is what that policy is for the harm that policy is designed to prevent is exactly the harm that it occurred here and and that policy was specific enough to create ministerial duties under under missouri law and so at mit on there is a genuine dispute as to the material facts regarding the amount of discretion in the policies or the you know so there's no requirement of hers to be and for those reasons i'm asking th