Engineer F Adjudicated Misconduct Employment Application Disclosure Failure

@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-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#> . case148:Engineer_F_Adjudicated_Misconduct_Employment_Application_Disclosure_Failure a proeth:AdjudicatedProfessionalMisconductEmploymentApplicationDisclosureObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Engineer F Adjudicated Misconduct Employment Application Disclosure Failure" ; proeth-core:competesWith case148:Engineer_F_Ethics_Code_Supersession_of_Legalistic_Minimum_Employment_Disclosure ; proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case148:BER_75-5_Whole-Person_Integrity_Standard_Activation, case148:BER_97-11_vs_Present_Case_Allegation-Adjudication_Threshold_Differential, case148:Engineer_F_Adjudicated_Wrongdoing_Disclosure_Obligation, case148:Engineer_F_Cross-Domain_License_Revocation_Non-Disclosure, case148:Engineer_F_Employer_Trust_Undermined_by_Initial_Non-Disclosure, case148:Engineer_F_Employment_Application_Narrow_Question_Omission, case148:Engineer_F_Fire_Protection_Safety_Domain_Heightened_Materiality, case148:Engineer_F_Narrow_Application_Question_Exploitable_Omission, case148:Engineer_F_Non-PE_License_Revocation_Integrity_Relevance, case148:Engineer_F_Privacy_vs._Material_Omission_Tension ; proeth:casecontext "Engineer F's contractor license was revoked following an adjudicated finding that he allowed an unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number. He answered 'no' to the employment application question about disciplinary history, relying on the literal scope of the question." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.95" ; proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case148:Allegation-Adjudication_Distinction_Invoked_in_Engineer_F_vs_Engineer_A_Comparison ; proeth:discoveredincase "148" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T23:02:49.838777+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "148" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T23:02:49.838777+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 the adjudicated revocation of his contractor's license on the employment application, recognizing that an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — as distinct from a mere allegation — cannot be withheld on the basis that the question was literally limited to PE license discipline." ; proeth:sourcetext "Clearly, a major difference between BER Case 97-11 and the present case is that here, Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part." ; proeth:temporalscope "At the time of completing the employment application" ; proeth:textreferences "Clearly, a major difference between BER Case 97-11 and the present case is that here, Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.", "The Board believes that this is a critical issue that makes the need for full disclosure a more important consideration than the circumstances described in BER Case 97-11.", "The facts do not suggest a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing." ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 148 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T23:11:08.579970"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 148 Extraction" .