The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a whistleblower retaliation claim brought by David Krzesni against the Wellpinit School District (WSD) and Superintendent John Adkins. The court's ruling, filed on July 27, 2026, confirms that Krzesni's allegations of wrongful termination were not substantiated under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (NDAA) and Washington state law.
This case matters because it addresses the protections offered to whistleblowers under federal law and clarifies the requirements necessary to establish a prima facie whistleblower claim. The outcome affects not only Krzesni but also sets a precedent for future whistleblower claims in similar contexts.
Background
David Krzesni worked for WSD as a Project Director under a federal grant aimed at helping American Indian students. He alleged that he was unlawfully terminated in retaliation for reporting the school district's misuse of federal funds, specifically regarding a trip to Hawaii funded by the grant without proper authorization.
The dispute arose after Krzesni reported the trip's expenses in an annual performance report (APR) and raised concerns about the lack of authorization. He claimed that his contract was not renewed as a direct result of these disclosures. The case reached the Ninth Circuit after the district court granted summary judgment in favor of WSD and Adkins, concluding that Krzesni had not made a protected disclosure under the NDAA.
The Ruling
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that Krzesni failed to establish a prima facie whistleblower claim. The court outlined the requirements for such a claim, which include being a covered employee, making a protected disclosure, and suffering an adverse employment action as a reprisal.
The court ruled, "A descriptive account of a trip taken to Hawaii by a group of WSD students and staff... without any explicit or implicit suggestion of misconduct cannot objectively qualify as a protected disclosure."
The judges noted that Krzesni's reporting of the Hawaii trip in the APR did not qualify as a protected disclosure because it did not suggest any wrongdoing. Furthermore, the court found that even if a protected disclosure had been made during a phone call with a federal grant contact, it could not be the basis for the adverse employment action since the decision to not renew Krzesni's contract had already been made prior to that call.
Impact
This ruling clarifies the standards for whistleblower protections under the NDAA. It emphasizes that disclosures must contain information that suggests misconduct for them to be considered protected. This decision could impact future whistleblower cases, as it sets a precedent that requires clear evidence of wrongdoing for claims to succeed.
Additionally, the ruling highlights the importance of timing in whistleblower claims. If an employer makes a decision before a purported protected disclosure, it cannot be considered retaliation. This aspect of the ruling could deter potential whistleblowers from coming forward if they fear their disclosures will not be protected.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Krzesni plans to appeal the decision or if there are any related cases pending. The outcome of this case may influence how future whistleblower claims are approached in both federal and state courts.