Engineer F Technically True Misleading Answer Employment Application
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#Engineer_F_Technically_True_Misleading_Answer_Employment_Application
Properties
Instance of
ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
Case context
Engineer F's negative answer was literally true with respect to his PE license, but it obscured the adjudicated revocation of his contractor's license — a material fact that the prospective employer would reasonably want to know when assessing his professional character.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.85
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 his PE license but created the false impression of an entirely unblemished professional record, omitting the material fact of his contractor's license revocation.
Temporal scope
At the time of completing the employment application
Relationships
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
Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked.
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_Technically_True_Misleading_Answer_Employment_Application a proeth:ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer F Technically True Misleading Answer Employment Application" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case148:Engineer_F_Adjudicated_Wrongdoing_Disclosure_Obligation,
case148:Engineer_F_Employment_Application_Narrow_Question_Omission ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer F's negative answer was literally true with respect to his PE license, but it obscured the adjudicated revocation of his contractor's license — a material fact that the prospective employer would reasonably want to know when assessing his professional character." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.85" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case148:Technically_True_But_Misleading_Statement_Prohibition_Applied_to_Engineer_F_Employment_Application ;
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 "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 his PE license but created the false impression of an entirely unblemished professional record, omitting the material fact of his contractor's license revocation." ;
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 "Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked.",
"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 "2026-02-28T23:11:08.572978"^^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
2026-02-28T23:11:08.572978
Generated by
ProEthica Case 148 Extraction