discretionary. See 28 U.S.C." § 2679(d). However, the Westfall test remains the framework for determining when nongovernmental persons or entities are entitled to the same immunity. See Mangold v. Analytic Servs., Inc., 77 F.3d 1442, 1446-50 (4th Cir.1996); Slotten v. Hoffman, 999 F.2d 333, 336 (8th Cir.1993); Midland Psychiatric, 969 F.Supp. at 551-52. If Empire had been an actual federal official, it unquestionably would have been entitled to official immunity for investigating and reporting possible fraud. See Peterson v. Weinberger, 508 F.2d at 50-51 (finding government integrity specialist officially immune because it was his responsibility to investigate claims of fraud and abuse and there was no evidence that he had acted beyond his scope of employment); Mangold, 77 F.3d at 1447 (<HOLDING>). The policy considerations underlying the
holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity holding that where a public official takes discretionary action that the official knows will directly benefit a financial interest that the official has concealed in violation of a state criminal law that official has deprived the public of his honest services under  1346 holding that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not protect a government official who is sued in an official capacity under title vii because title vii does not impose personal liability recognizing as a general matter that official immunity would protect official decisions to investigate suspected fraud in the administration of government contracts holding that the question of whether a municipal official is a policymaking official is a matter of state law to be decided by the court