Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Non-Disclosure Employment Application
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Engineer_F_Contractor_License_Revocation_Non-Disclosure_Employment_Application
Properties
Instance of
Non-EngineeringLicenseDisciplinaryHistoryEmploymentDisclosureObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Non-EngineeringLicenseDisciplinaryHistoryEmploymentDisclosureObligation
Case context
Engineer F applied for a professional engineering position and answered 'no' to a question about prior discipline or license suspension/revocation. His PE license was never revoked, but his contractor's license was revoked for allowing an unlicensed, unrelated individual to use his contractor license number on another project.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.87
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer F
Obligation statement
Engineer F was obligated to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license on the engineering firm's employment application, because the revocation resulted from an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing (license-number lending) that reflects on his professional character and fitness for engineering practice, even though the application question was facially limited to engineering license discipline.
Temporal scope
At the time of completing the employment application
Relationships
derivedFromPrinciple
Allegation-Adjudication Distinction Invoked in Engineer F vs Engineer A Comparison
Source Evidence
Source text
On the engineering firm employment application, there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application.
Text references
Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
On the engineering firm employment application, there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application.
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_Contractor_License_Revocation_Non-Disclosure_Employment_Application a proeth:Non-EngineeringLicenseDisciplinaryHistoryEmploymentDisclosureObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Non-Disclosure Employment Application" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case148:Engineering_Firm_Hiring_Authority_Broad_Disciplinary_Inquiry_Due_Diligence ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case148:Engineering_Firm_Hiring_Authority_Broad_Disciplinary_Inquiry_Due_Diligence ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer F applied for a professional engineering position and answered 'no' to a question about prior discipline or license suspension/revocation. His PE license was never revoked, but his contractor's license was revoked for allowing an unlicensed, unrelated individual to use his contractor license number on another project." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.87" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case148:Allegation-Adjudication_Distinction_Invoked_in_Engineer_F_vs_Engineer_A_Comparison ;
proeth:discoveredincase "148" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T22:55:36.193353+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "148" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T22:55:36.193353+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer F" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Non-Engineering License Disciplinary History Employment Disclosure Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer F was obligated to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license on the engineering firm's employment application, because the revocation resulted from an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing (license-number lending) that reflects on his professional character and fitness for engineering practice, even though the application question was facially limited to engineering license discipline." ;
proeth:sourcetext "On the engineering firm employment application, there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of completing the employment application" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.",
"On the engineering firm employment application, there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 148 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T23:11:08.572745"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 148 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
148
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-02-28T22:55:36.193353+00:00
First case
148
Generated
2026-02-28T22:55:36.193353+00:00
Attributed to
Case 148 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T23:11:08.572745
Generated by
ProEthica Case 148 Extraction