DP3

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP3

Should Engineer Z apply the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test uniformly across both the general promotional brochure and the firm resume — treating Engineer X's non-key status as dispositive for both document types — or apply a heightened materiality standard to firm resume submissions made in response to hydrology-specific client solicitations, where Engineer X's listed expertise is the direct basis for client selection?

Engineer Z must evaluate whether the continued listing of Engineer X in Firm Y's brochure and firm resume satisfies both elements of the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test under NSPE Code Section II.5.a — specifically whether Engineer X's listing constitutes a pertinent fact clearly and decisively relevant to client selection decisions, and whether the listing was made with intent to enhance firm qualifications beyond what was accurate. This evaluation is complicated by the distinction between general promotional brochures distributed broadly and firm resumes submitted in direct response to specific client solicitations, and by the possibility that a client specifically seeking hydrology services would find Engineer X's departure just as material as a key employee's departure regardless of her general prominence within the firm.

Apply the Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test uniformly to both the general promotional brochure and the firm resume, treating Engineer X's non-key-employee status and the non-significance of hydrology to the firm's overall practice as dispositive for both document types, and continuing to distribute both without modification during the notice period on the grounds that neither element of the test is clearly satisfied.

Apply the uniform non-key-employee standard to the general promotional brochure while applying a heightened materiality standard to any firm resume submitted in direct response to a hydrology-specific client solicitation — disclosing Engineer X's pending departure or withholding the resume submission until corrected — on the grounds that the direct nexus between Engineer X's listed expertise and the client's selection decision elevates the materiality threshold for that document type regardless of her general prominence within the firm.

Treat Engineer X's status as one of few engineers in the firm with hydrology expertise as sufficient to elevate her to functional key-employee status for brochure-listing purposes — regardless of the non-significant percentage of hydrology work in the firm's overall portfolio — and apply the stricter BER 83-1 standard requiring immediate correction upon receipt of departure notice for both the brochure and the firm resume.

Engineer Z