Engineer B BER 83-1 Key Employee Misrepresentation Violation
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/174#Engineer_B_BER_83-1_Key_Employee_Misrepresentation_Violation
Properties
Instance of
PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
Applied to
Firm brochure listing Engineer A as key employee post-termination
Balancing with
Honesty
Transparency
Concrete expression
In BER 83-1, Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a 'key employee' after termination satisfied both elements of the dual test: the 'key employee' designation constituted a pertinent fact misrepresentation, and Engineer B's deliberate distribution after actual knowledge of termination demonstrated intent to enhance the firm's qualifications.
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Interpretation
When a departing engineer is prominently designated as a key employee and the firm continues distribution with actual knowledge of departure, both elements of the dual test are satisfied and a violation is established.
Invoked by
Engineer B (BER 83-1) Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
Tension resolution
No balancing was available; the conduct unambiguously satisfied both elements of the violation standard.
Source Evidence
Source text
The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code.
Text references
Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.
The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code.
the inclusion of the name of Engineer A in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
TTL
@prefix case174: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/174#> .
@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#> .
case174:Engineer_B_BER_83-1_Key_Employee_Misrepresentation_Violation a proeth:PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B BER 83-1 Key Employee Misrepresentation Violation" ;
proeth:appliedto "Firm brochure listing Engineer A as key employee post-termination" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Honesty",
"Transparency" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "In BER 83-1, Engineer B's continued distribution of brochures listing Engineer A as a 'key employee' after termination satisfied both elements of the dual test: the 'key employee' designation constituted a pertinent fact misrepresentation, and Engineer B's deliberate distribution after actual knowledge of termination demonstrated intent to enhance the firm's qualifications." ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "174" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "174" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "When a departing engineer is prominently designated as a key employee and the firm continues distribution with actual knowledge of departure, both elements of the dual test are satisfied and a violation is established." ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer B (BER 83-1) Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test" ;
proeth:sourcetext "The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "No balancing was available; the conduct unambiguously satisfied both elements of the violation standard." ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer B distributed the brochure after Engineer A had left the firm.",
"The Board concluded that this would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code.",
"the inclusion of the name of Engineer A in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 174 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T12:34:10.126622"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 174 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
174
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
First case
174
Generated
2026-03-01T12:22:18.762326+00:00
Attributed to
Case 174 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T12:34:10.126622
Generated by
ProEthica Case 174 Extraction