Engineer F Artfully Misleading Employment Application Answer
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Engineer_F_Artfully_Misleading_Employment_Application_Answer
Properties
Instance of
ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
Case context
Engineer F answered 'no' to the employment application question about whether he had been disciplined or had a license suspended in connection with the practice of professional engineering. This answer was literally accurate (his PE license was never revoked) but created a false impression by omitting the contractor license revocation.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer F
Obligation statement
Engineer F was obligated to refrain from answering 'no' to the disciplinary history question in a manner that was technically accurate as to PE license discipline but created a false impression of an unblemished professional record by omitting the adjudicated contractor license revocation.
Temporal scope
At the time of completing the employment application
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer F Employment Application Narrow Question Omission
derivedFromPrinciple
Technically True But Misleading Answer by Engineer F
Source Evidence
Source text
While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F's conduct was failing.
Text references
Engineer F is assumed to have realized that the employer would have wanted to know this information before making the decision to hire Engineer F.
While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F's conduct was failing.
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-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_Artfully_Misleading_Employment_Application_Answer a proeth:ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer F Artfully Misleading Employment Application Answer" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case148:Engineer_F_Qualifications_Non-Misrepresentation_Employment_Application ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case148:Engineer_F_Employment_Application_Narrow_Question_Omission ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer F answered 'no' to the employment application question about whether he had been disciplined or had a license suspended in connection with the practice of professional engineering. This answer was literally accurate (his PE license was never revoked) but created a false impression by omitting the contractor license revocation." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case148:Technically_True_But_Misleading_Answer_by_Engineer_F ;
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 "Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer F was obligated to refrain from answering 'no' to the disciplinary history question in a manner that was technically accurate as to PE license discipline but created a false impression of an unblemished professional record by omitting the adjudicated contractor license revocation." ;
proeth:sourcetext "While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F's conduct was failing." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of completing the employment application" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer F is assumed to have realized that the employer would have wanted to know this information before making the decision to hire Engineer F.",
"While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F's conduct was failing." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 148 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T23:11:08.580602"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 148 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
148
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T23:02:49.838777+00:00
First case
148
Generated
2026-02-28T23:02:49.838777+00:00
Attributed to
Case 148 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T23:11:08.580602
Generated by
ProEthica Case 148 Extraction