Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WHISTLEBLOWERS—9th Cir.: Former school employee cannot revive claims concerning grant-funded Hawaii trip, (Jul 28, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

His act of reporting the trip in an annual performance report was not a protected disclosure, nor was a rhetorical question posed to a supervisor about the trip’s funding.

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against the whistleblower retaliation and wrongful discharge claims asserted by a former Spokane school employee under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (NDAA) and Washington state law, the Ninth Circuit determined that his disclosures of alleged wrongdoing were not clear enough to trigger whistleblower protections. Even if the employee had made a protected disclosure in a call with a federal grant contact, such a disclosure still could not have been a basis for the adverse employment action because the school district had already decided not to renew his contract prior to the disclosure. His state-law claim also failed because contract nonrenewal was not a discharge (Krzesni v. Wellpinit School District, No. 25-3308 (9th Cir. July 27, 2026)).

Wellpinit School District is located within the Spokane Reservation, and the majority of its students are members of the Spokane Tribe.

Federal grant. In September 2022, the federal government awarded the district a “Native Youth Community Project Grant,” designed to help American Indian students prepare for college and careers. The employee in this case was hired in January 2023 under contract to serve as project director in connection with the grant.

Hawaii trip. Prior to hiring the employee, the district had planned for a group of students and staff to participate in a peer mediation program in Hawaii, scheduled for March 6 through March 14, 2023. The district believed the trip would further the grant’s objectives.

When he started his job, the employee signed a requisition form to fund the trip using grant money. His federal grant contact questioned the use of funds of this trip and warned him that it might not be approved. Nevertheless, a group of students and staff, including the employee, attended the Hawaii program.

Annual performance report. Upon returning from the trip, the employee contacted the district’s business manager regarding the filing of the annual performance report to demonstrate compliance with the grant’s terms. He inquired about used grant funds, noting that it was “tricky with the Hawaii trip unresolved.” The business manager informed the employee that she had already drawn down grant funds to pay for the trip. The employee then prepared the report, noting the trip expenses of more than $55,000 and describing how the trip furthered various grant objectives.

Nonrenewal. On May 1, 2023, the district superintendent contacted the district’s general counsel about the employee and the two discussed not renewing his contract. They spoke again on May 5, and on May 8 the general counsel sent the superintendent a list of talking points for an upcoming meeting about the nonrenewal. That same morning, May 8, district administrators held a meeting and decided not to renew the employee’s contract, which was set to expire September 30.

“Fraud.” Separately that day, on May 8, the employee had a call with his federal grant contact, who informed him that drawing down grant funds for the Hawaii trip without prior government authorization constituted “fraud.” A subsequent email from the federal grant contact referred to discrepancies found in the annual performance report and noted that “the grant is on route payment until further notice.” The district ended up sending the government a check to reimburse the expenses incurred in connection with the Hawaii trip.

Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit regarding the termination of his employment. The lower court granted the district’s motion for summary judgment, leading to this appeal.

Prima facie claim. First, the court explained that this case required it to examine the substantive requirements to establish a whistleblower claim under the NDAA. Reviewing the statute’s text and relevant caselaw, it concluded that to make a prima facie claim, an employee (1) who is covered by the statute; (2) must communicate to a qualified person or body; (3) a protected disclosure; and (4) suffer an adverse employment action as a reprisal for making that disclosure.

Coverage. Applying this formula to the case, the court noted that it was undisputed that the employee was covered by the statute.

Disclosure. As to whether the employee made a disclosure to a person or body specified in the statute, the court observed that one disclosure alleged by the employee to have been protected was made to the district’s business manager.

Protected? With regard to whether the disclosure was protected under the NDAA, the court explained that by the statute’s plain text, a protected disclosure must contain “information that the employee reasonably believes” is evidence of misconduct. § 4712(a)(1) (emphasis added).

A reasonable belief, continued the court, must be objectively reasonable, pointing to its interpretations of two separate whistleblower statutes that invoke the same reasonable-belief standard in identical or similar language. According to that standard, a whistleblower’s belief is objectively reasonable if a disinterested person with knowledge of the operative facts would reasonably conclude that the disclosure evinces misconduct. In applying this understanding to the NDAA, the Ninth Circuit joined other circuits that have interpreted the statute in the same manner.

“Because the standard is objective and turns on how a disinterested observer, informed of the operative facts, would understand the disclosure, the inquiry necessarily requires assessing the disclosure’s content and whether it furnishes sufficient information indicative of any misconduct,” said the court.

Reprisal. Turning to the fourth prima facie factor, it was undisputed that the employee suffered an adverse employment action through his contract nonrenewal. However, the court noted that not every adverse employment action triggers the protections afforded by the NDAA, explaining that only adverse employment actions taken in reprisal for making a protected disclosure qualify.

These four requirements, continued the court, must be satisfied for a prima facie whistleblower claim under the NDAA to arise. Once a prima facie claim is established, an employer may rebut it with clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action against the employee even if the protected disclosure had not occurred.

Performance report disclosure. Having laid out the basic requirements to articulate a whistleblower claim, the court directed its attention to the three disclosures alleged by the employee, beginning with his description in the annual performance report.

Here, the court found that a descriptive account of a trip taken to Hawaii by a group of students and staff, including the employee himself, without any explicit or implicit suggestion of misconduct, could not objectively qualify as a protected disclosure.

“Absent any suggestion of wrongdoing, we cannot conclude that a protected disclosure occurred,” said the court, concluding the report did not blow the whistle.

Rhetorical question. Next, the employee argued that when he learned the grant funds were drawn down to fund the trip without prior authorization, he rhetorically asked a supervisor, “So this is how we do things?” This question itself, he asserted, was a protected disclosure. The court was not convinced.

Such a question did not convey “information” relating to misconduct as required by the statute. It did not disclose anything, much less wrongdoing, observed the court. Applying the standard articulated above, a disinterested person with knowledge of the operative facts could not reasonably conclude that this question evinced any misconduct and thus was not a protected disclosure.

Phone call. Finally, the employee argued that the May 8 phone call with the federal grant contact concerning the unauthorized use of grant funds qualified as a separate protected disclosure. The district court had concluded that a protected disclosure might have been made in that call, but any such disclosure could not have been the basis for the adverse employment action because the school district had already decided not to renew the employee’s contract before then. The court here agreed.

“An adverse action that preceded a purported disclosure could not have been taken in retaliation for that disclosure,” said the court.

State-law claim. Separately, the employee contended that the nonrenewal of his contract constituted wrongful discharge under Washington law. The court found that the employee was not discharged, however. Rather, his contract with the school district was not renewed. Because a nonrenewal cannot establish the prima facie element of discharge, this claim also failed.

The case is No. 25-3308.

Judge: Clifton, R.

Attorneys: Matthew Zachary Crotty (Riverside NW Law Group) for David Krzesni. Rachel K. Stanley and Michael Early McFarland, Jr. (Evans, Craven & Lackie) for Wellpinit School District and John Adkins.

Companies: Wellpinit School District

Cases: Whistleblowers CoverageLiability Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews