Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Continued Use Absolute Prohibition Applied to Engineer B
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Post-Actual-Termination_Brochure_Continued_Use_Absolute_Prohibition_Applied_to_Engineer_B
Properties
Instance of
Post-Actual-TerminationBrochureContinuedUseAbsoluteProhibitionPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Post-Actual-TerminationBrochureContinuedUseAbsoluteProhibitionPrinciple
Applied to
Engineer B's brochure distribution after Engineer A's actual departure
Balancing with
Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test
Concrete expression
Once Engineer A had formally departed, Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee constituted an unambiguous misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance qualifications, with no permissibility exception for cost or inconvenience.
Confidence
0.96
Importance
high
Interpretation
Post-departure continued use of brochures listing a departed key employee is per se a violation; no balancing against cost or practicability is available once the employment has actually ended.
Invoked by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Tension resolution
The Board held that the post-departure distribution is a clear violation without qualification; the intent-and-purpose element is satisfied by Engineer B's awareness as the terminating party.
Source Evidence
Source text
once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely.
Text references
Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code.
once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely.
TTL
@prefix case171: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@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#> .
case171:Post-Actual-Termination_Brochure_Continued_Use_Absolute_Prohibition_Applied_to_Engineer_B a proeth:Post-Actual-TerminationBrochureContinuedUseAbsoluteProhibitionPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Continued Use Absolute Prohibition Applied to Engineer B" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer B's brochure distribution after Engineer A's actual departure" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Once Engineer A had formally departed, Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a key employee constituted an unambiguous misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with intent to enhance qualifications, with no permissibility exception for cost or inconvenience." ;
proeth:confidence "0.96" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Post-departure continued use of brochures listing a departed key employee is per se a violation; no balancing against cost or practicability is available once the employment has actually ended." ;
proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:principleclass "Post-Actual-Termination Brochure Continued Use Absolute Prohibition Principle" ;
proeth:sourcetext "once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The Board held that the post-departure distribution is a clear violation without qualification; the intent-and-purpose element is satisfied by Engineer B's awareness as the terminating party." ;
proeth:textreferences "Moreover, Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.",
"That is a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constitutes a violation of the Code.",
"once Engineer A had been formally dismissed, Engineer B had an ethical obligation to cease using the brochure with Engineer A's name in it entirely." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 171 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T14:51:15.289674"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 171 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
171
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
First case
171
Generated
2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
Attributed to
Case 171 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T14:51:15.289674
Generated by
ProEthica Case 171 Extraction