DP3
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#DP3
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP3
Decision question
Should the Board treat XYZ Consultants' failure to ask about prior PE exam attempts as a factor that partially absorbs Engineer Intern A's individual disclosure obligation — producing a shared-responsibility finding — or should the engineer's affirmative honesty duty under the NSPE Code be assessed independently of the employer's investigative diligence, with the employer's due diligence failure treated only as a secondary mitigating factor relevant to remedy rather than to the existence of the ethical obligation?
Focus
The structural tension between the Employer Hiring Due Diligence Obligation — which places responsibility on XYZ Consultants to inquire about prior exam attempts when imposing a licensure condition — and the Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation — which places an affirmative honesty burden on Engineer Intern A independent of whether the question was asked — and whether these principles should be treated as equally weighted competing obligations that share and thereby dilute the ethical burden, or as obligations operating at different levels of the ethical architecture with the candidate's honesty duty as primary.
Option1
Treat the employer's failure to ask about prior exam attempts as a partial exculpating factor that, combined with the candidate's privacy interest in exam history, supports a shared-responsibility finding in which the omission is imprudent but not an independent ethics violation
Option2
Assess the engineer's pre-employment disclosure obligation independently of whether the employer asked, treating the materiality of the omitted fact — two prior failures directly bearing on a 90-day licensure condition — as sufficient to trigger an affirmative disclosure duty under III.3.a, with the employer's due diligence failure treated only as a secondary factor relevant to remedy and relational responsibility
Option3
Apply a graduated materiality standard that treats the employer's failure to ask as fully exculpating when the omitted information is personal or biographical in character, but as insufficient to excuse omission when the undisclosed fact is the direct metric by which the employer's stated hiring condition is measured — finding the omission in this case to cross the materiality threshold and constitute an ethics violation despite the employer's due diligence failure
Role
Engineering Firm Hiring Authority (XYZ Consultants)
TTL
@prefix case130: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case130:DP3 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should the Board treat XYZ Consultants' failure to ask about prior PE exam attempts as a factor that partially absorbs Engineer Intern A's individual disclosure obligation — producing a shared-responsibility finding — or should the engineer's affirmative honesty duty under the NSPE Code be assessed independently of the employer's investigative diligence, with the employer's due diligence failure treated only as a secondary mitigating factor relevant to remedy rather than to the existence of the ethical obligation?" ;
proeth:focus "The structural tension between the Employer Hiring Due Diligence Obligation — which places responsibility on XYZ Consultants to inquire about prior exam attempts when imposing a licensure condition — and the Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation — which places an affirmative honesty burden on Engineer Intern A independent of whether the question was asked — and whether these principles should be treated as equally weighted competing obligations that share and thereby dilute the ethical burden, or as obligations operating at different levels of the ethical architecture with the candidate's honesty duty as primary." ;
proeth:option1 "Treat the employer's failure to ask about prior exam attempts as a partial exculpating factor that, combined with the candidate's privacy interest in exam history, supports a shared-responsibility finding in which the omission is imprudent but not an independent ethics violation" ;
proeth:option2 "Assess the engineer's pre-employment disclosure obligation independently of whether the employer asked, treating the materiality of the omitted fact — two prior failures directly bearing on a 90-day licensure condition — as sufficient to trigger an affirmative disclosure duty under III.3.a, with the employer's due diligence failure treated only as a secondary factor relevant to remedy and relational responsibility" ;
proeth:option3 "Apply a graduated materiality standard that treats the employer's failure to ask as fully exculpating when the omitted information is personal or biographical in character, but as insufficient to excuse omission when the undisclosed fact is the direct metric by which the employer's stated hiring condition is measured — finding the omission in this case to cross the materiality threshold and constitute an ethics violation despite the employer's due diligence failure" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineering Firm Hiring Authority (XYZ Consultants)" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-26T10:01:18.540688"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 130 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-26T10:01:18.540688
Generated by
ProEthica Case 130 Extraction