DP10
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#DP10
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP10
Decision question
Should Engineer F disclose the contractor license revocation on the employment application despite the question's narrow wording referencing only PE license discipline, or rely on the literal scope of the question to justify omitting the revocation?
Focus
Engineer F's duty to disclose an adjudicated contractor license revocation on a PE employment application, where the application question was narrowly worded to reference only discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering,' and Engineer F answered 'no' while concealing a formal revocation for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number in fire sprinkler work.
Option1
Disclose the contractor license revocation on the employment application, interpreting the disciplinary question according to its evident purpose of assessing character and fitness, and provide a brief contextual explanation of the circumstances and any remedial steps taken.
Option2
Answer 'no' to the disciplinary question on the grounds that the question explicitly references only discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering,' and the contractor license revocation arose outside that domain and was not a PE license action, making the answer technically accurate as written.
Option3
Contact the hiring firm to ask whether the disciplinary question is intended to cover non-PE occupational licenses before submitting the application, thereby placing the interpretive burden on the questioner and ensuring the answer given reflects the firm's actual informational intent.
Role
Engineer F
TTL
@prefix case148: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#> .
@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#> .
case148:DP10 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP10" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP10" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer F disclose the contractor license revocation on the employment application despite the question's narrow wording referencing only PE license discipline, or rely on the literal scope of the question to justify omitting the revocation?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer F's duty to disclose an adjudicated contractor license revocation on a PE employment application, where the application question was narrowly worded to reference only discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering,' and Engineer F answered 'no' while concealing a formal revocation for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number in fire sprinkler work." ;
proeth:option1 "Disclose the contractor license revocation on the employment application, interpreting the disciplinary question according to its evident purpose of assessing character and fitness, and provide a brief contextual explanation of the circumstances and any remedial steps taken." ;
proeth:option2 "Answer 'no' to the disciplinary question on the grounds that the question explicitly references only discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering,' and the contractor license revocation arose outside that domain and was not a PE license action, making the answer technically accurate as written." ;
proeth:option3 "Contact the hiring firm to ask whether the disciplinary question is intended to cover non-PE occupational licenses before submitting the application, thereby placing the interpretive burden on the questioner and ensuring the answer given reflects the firm's actual informational intent." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer F" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T23:27:29.021094"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 148 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-28T23:27:29.021094
Generated by
ProEthica Case 148 Extraction