Engineer Intern A PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Assessment
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#Engineer_Intern_A_PE_Exam_Failure_Non-Disclosure_Materiality_Assessment
Properties
Instance of
PEExamFailureDisclosureMaterialityAssessmentObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PEExamFailureDisclosureMaterialityAssessmentObligation
Case context
Engineer Intern A applied for a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, disclosed his unlicensed status but did not volunteer two prior exam failures. The Board assessed whether the omission was material given the employer's known context.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer Intern A
Obligation statement
Engineer Intern A was obligated to assess whether his two prior PE exam failures constituted a material fact given XYZ Consultants' known decision-making context — specifically the 90-day licensure condition — and the Board found that while disclosure would have been prudent, the omission did not rise to an ethics violation because XYZ Consultants offered employment knowing he had not yet passed the exam.
Temporal scope
During pre-employment interview and application process
Source Evidence
Source text
The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11. That is, it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required.
Text references
The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11. That is, it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required.
The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact.'
XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam.
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_Intern_A_PE_Exam_Failure_Non-Disclosure_Materiality_Assessment a proeth:PEExamFailureDisclosureMaterialityAssessmentObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer Intern A PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Assessment" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case130:Engineer_Intern_A_Licensure_Condition_Acceptance_Honest_Representation,
case130:Engineer_Intern_A_Pre-Interview_PE_Exam_Attempt_Non-Disclosure ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case130:Engineer_Intern_A_Privacy_vs_Material_Omission_Tension ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case130:Engineer_Intern_A_Pre-Interview_PE_Exam_Attempt_Non-Disclosure ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer Intern A applied for a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, disclosed his unlicensed status but did not volunteer two prior exam failures. The Board assessed whether the omission was material given the employer's known context." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case130:Honesty_Standard_Applied_to_Engineer_Intern_A_Pre-Employment_Representations,
case130:Omission_Materiality_Analysis_Applied_to_Engineer_Intern_A_PE_Exam_Failures ;
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 Intern A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "PE Exam Failure Disclosure Materiality Assessment Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer Intern A was obligated to assess whether his two prior PE exam failures constituted a material fact given XYZ Consultants' known decision-making context — specifically the 90-day licensure condition — and the Board found that while disclosure would have been prudent, the omission did not rise to an ethics violation because XYZ Consultants offered employment knowing he had not yet passed the exam." ;
proeth:sourcetext "The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11. That is, it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required." ;
proeth:temporalscope "During pre-employment interview and application process" ;
proeth:textreferences "The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11. That is, it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required.",
"The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact.'",
"XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 130 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-26T09:45:01.257492"^^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
2026-02-26T09:45:01.257492
Generated by
ProEthica Case 130 Extraction