Pre-Departure Promotional Negotiation Prohibition Boundary Applied to Engineer A Solicitation
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Pre-Departure_Promotional_Negotiation_Prohibition_Boundary_Applied_to_Engineer_A_Solicitation
Properties
Instance of
Pre-DeparturePromotionalNegotiationProhibitionWithLiteralBoundary
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Pre-DeparturePromotionalNegotiationProhibitionWithLiteralBoundary
Applied to
Engineer A's client notifications during the notice period from November 1982 through actual termination
Balancing with
At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
Client-Initiated Departure Moral Responsibility Shift Principle
Concrete expression
Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's clients while still employed during the notice period raises the question of whether this crosses the boundary from permissible planning into prohibited promotional negotiation; the employer-initiated termination context and the absence of active contract supplanting are relevant to where the literal boundary falls.
Confidence
0.85
Importance
high
Interpretation
The prohibition on pre-departure promotional negotiation applies with reduced force when departure is employer-compelled; however, active solicitation (notifying clients and requesting future work consideration) likely crosses the threshold from mere planning into actionable promotional effort, making this a borderline application of the principle.
Invoked by
Engineer A Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer
Tension resolution
The termination-initiated context and the absence of active contract supplanting mitigate but do not fully eliminate the concern; the ethical analysis turns on whether Engineer B's clients had active contracts at the time of solicitation.
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work. Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
Text references
Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.
Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work.
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:Pre-Departure_Promotional_Negotiation_Prohibition_Boundary_Applied_to_Engineer_A_Solicitation a proeth:Pre-DeparturePromotionalNegotiationProhibitionWithLiteralBoundary,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Pre-Departure Promotional Negotiation Prohibition Boundary Applied to Engineer A Solicitation" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer A's client notifications during the notice period from November 1982 through actual termination" ;
proeth:balancingwith "At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right",
"Client-Initiated Departure Moral Responsibility Shift Principle" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's solicitation of Engineer B's clients while still employed during the notice period raises the question of whether this crosses the boundary from permissible planning into prohibited promotional negotiation; the employer-initiated termination context and the absence of active contract supplanting are relevant to where the literal boundary falls." ;
proeth:confidence "0.85" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The prohibition on pre-departure promotional negotiation applies with reduced force when departure is employer-compelled; however, active solicitation (notifying clients and requesting future work consideration) likely crosses the threshold from mere planning into actionable promotional effort, making this a borderline application of the principle." ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Pre-Departure Client-Soliciting Termination-Notified Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Pre-Departure Promotional Negotiation Prohibition With Literal Boundary" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work. Meanwhile, Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The termination-initiated context and the absence of active contract supplanting mitigate but do not fully eliminate the concern; the ethical analysis turns on whether Engineer B's clients had active contracts at the time of solicitation." ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A continued to work for Engineer B for several additional months after the November termination notice.",
"Engineer A thereupon notified clients of Engineer B that Engineer A was planning to start another engineering firm and would appreciate being considered for future work." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 171 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T14:51:15.269302"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 171 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
171
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
First case
171
Generated
2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
Attributed to
Case 171 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T14:51:15.269302
Generated by
ProEthica Case 171 Extraction