Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Palladino have not shown that on the face of Plaintiffs’ Complaint their alleged misconduct was distinct from the kinds of behavior clearly established as unconstitutional sexual harassment. See, e.g., Beardsley v. Webb, 30 F.3d 524, 530-31 (4th Cir.1994) (acknowledging that sexual harassment is a question of fact but holding in affirming a denial of qualified immunity, that “[n]o male officer could reasonably have thought in 1992 that it was not sexual harassment to announce that it was his turn to make out with a women who was subject to his command”). Defendants Dorrance and Palladino are, therefore, not entitled to a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Plaintiffs’ sexual harassment claims on the basis of a qualified immunity defense. See Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391, 406 (4th Cir.2001) . In regard to the qualified immunity claims of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity
B. holding a rule 12b6 dismissal inappropriate where defendants have done nothing more than offer their bald assertions that they are entitled to qualified immunity
C. holding trial court improperly granted dismissal on ground of immunity because the defendant had qualified statutory immunity rather than absolute immunity
D. holding that the employers bald assertions that the officers thought that they were in compliance with the act did not satisfy the good faith requirement
E. holding that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that speech was public concern
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.