Joseph Sheble, III v. Michael Huerta
410 U.S. App. D.C. 312
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Joseph F. Sheble, III was a Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) authorized to conduct FAA pilot practical tests and issue airman certificates; the FAA may terminate such appointments for cause under 49 U.S.C. § 44702(d)(2) and FAA Order 8900.1.
- A nationwide risk assessment identified Sheble as high-risk; a SEED (Special Emphasis Evaluation Designee) evaluation in Sept. 2011 found multiple deficiencies and recommended remedial training.
- After remedial training, follow-up evaluations (including a Nov. 26, 2012 SEED by three inspectors) again found numerous deficiencies (outdated standards, rote questioning, omitted required items, accepting incorrect answers) and recommended termination.
- The local Flight Standards District Office manager terminated Sheble’s appointment in December 2012 by a written letter that largely tracked the FAA’s template termination letter from FAA Order 8900.1; Sheble appealed administratively and raised procedural and conflict-of-interest claims.
- The FAA appeals panel affirmed the termination; Sheble petitioned for judicial review asserting (1) inadequate specificity in the termination letter under FAA procedure and (2) a conflict of interest by SEED team leader Michelle Brown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAA violated its internal procedural requirement to state termination reasons "as specifically as possible" | Sheble: termination letter lacked sufficient specificity and thus violated FAA Order 8900.1 | FAA: letter followed the Order and its template; substantial compliance is sufficient; no prejudice to Sheble | Court: Letter substantially complied with FAA procedures (it tracked the template) and Sheble showed no prejudice from any alleged lack of specificity |
| Whether Sheble suffered prejudice from any deficiency in the termination letter | Sheble: lack of specific reasons impaired ability to contest termination | FAA: Sheble was debriefed orally by inspectors and received specific SEED findings, so he was not prejudiced | Court: Sheble received detailed debriefings and failed to show any prejudice |
| Whether Brown had an actionable conflict of interest that tainted the SEED evaluation | Sheble: Brown was engaged to an inspector who previously criticized Sheble; that relationship and overlapping language showed bias | FAA: mere relationship or shared opinions among inspectors does not show an actionable conflict; multiple inspectors reached the same conclusion independently | Court: No actionable conflict shown; shared phrase and engagement do not demonstrate improper bias; other inspectors and the manager independently supported termination |
| Scope of judicial review over procedural claims in DPE terminations | Sheble: Court can review procedural compliance though not the substantive termination decision | FAA: (implicit) substantive termination is unreviewable, but procedural compliance is reviewable | Court: Jurisdiction exists to review procedural claims; applied Lopez/Steenholdt standard requiring substantial shortfall plus prejudice, which Sheble failed to prove |
Key Cases Cited
- Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535 (1959) (agency must follow its own procedural rules)
- Lopez v. FAA, 318 F.3d 242 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (courts may review procedural defects in FAA termination decisions; plaintiff must show substantial shortfall and prejudice)
- Steenholdt v. FAA, 314 F.3d 633 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (limits on review of substantive FAA termination decisions; procedural challenges remain reviewable)