Engineer F BER 03-6 Contractor License Revocation Non-Disclosure
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#Engineer_F_BER_03-6_Contractor_License_Revocation_Non-Disclosure
Properties
Instance of
AdjudicatedProfessionalMisconductEmploymentApplicationDisclosureObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#AdjudicatedProfessionalMisconductEmploymentApplicationDisclosureObligation
Case context
Engineer F, a PE and former fire sprinkler contracting firm owner, answered 'no' on an engineering firm employment application when asked about disciplinary history or license revocation, despite having had his contractor's license revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use the contractor license number on another project.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer F
Obligation statement
Engineer F was obligated to disclose on the engineering firm employment application the revocation of his contractor's license, because that revocation constituted an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — not a mere allegation — and the employment application asked about prior disciplinary history in professional practice.
Temporal scope
At the time of completing the employment application
Source Evidence
Source text
On the engineering firm employment application, a question asked whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application.
Text references
In finding that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license, the Board referred to Case 97-11 but pointed out a critical distinction: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.' This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'
On the engineering firm employment application, a question asked whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application.
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-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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:Engineer_F_BER_03-6_Contractor_License_Revocation_Non-Disclosure a proeth:AdjudicatedProfessionalMisconductEmploymentApplicationDisclosureObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer F BER 03-6 Contractor License Revocation Non-Disclosure" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case130:Engineer_A_BER_97-11_Pending_Allegation_Prudential_Weighing,
case130:Engineer_F_BER_03-6_Non-Engineering_License_Disciplinary_History_Non-Disclosure ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case130:Engineer_A_BER_97-11_Pending_Allegation_Prudential_Weighing ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer F, a PE and former fire sprinkler contracting firm owner, answered 'no' on an engineering firm employment application when asked about disciplinary history or license revocation, despite having had his contractor's license revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use the contractor license number on another project." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "130" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "130" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer F" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Adjudicated Professional Misconduct Employment Application Disclosure Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer F was obligated to disclose on the engineering firm employment application the revocation of his contractor's license, because that revocation constituted an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — not a mere allegation — and the employment application asked about prior disciplinary history in professional practice." ;
proeth:sourcetext "On the engineering firm employment application, a question asked whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of completing the employment application" ;
proeth:textreferences "In finding that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license, the Board referred to Case 97-11 but pointed out a critical distinction: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.' This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'",
"On the engineering firm employment application, a question asked whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 130 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-26T09:45:01.256911"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 130 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
130
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
First case
130
Generated
2026-02-26T09:36:25.340131+00:00
Attributed to
Case 130 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-26T09:45:01.256911
Generated by
ProEthica Case 130 Extraction