Engineer Z Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment — Engineer X Departure
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/174#Engineer_Z_Case-by-Case_Brochure_Misrepresentation_Pertinence_Assessment_—_Engineer_X_Departure
Properties
Instance of
Case-by-CaseBrochureMisrepresentationPertinenceAssessmentObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Case-by-CaseBrochureMisrepresentationPertinenceAssessmentObligation
Case context
The Board's analysis in this case and BER 83-1 establishes that the ethical analysis of brochure personnel listing is fact-specific and not governed by categorical rules; Engineer Z's failure to conduct this assessment and take appropriate corrective action constitutes the violation.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y)
Obligation statement
Engineer Z was obligated to conduct a case-by-case assessment of the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding Engineer X's departure — including Engineer X's non-key-employee status, the non-significant percentage of hydrology work, and the absence of highlighting in the brochure — before determining whether continued distribution of the brochure constituted an ethical violation.
Temporal scope
Upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Three-Party Interest Balancing on Engineer X Departure
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
Text references
Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.
Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.
Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume.
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 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#> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/174#Engineer_Z_Case-by-Case_Brochure_Misrepresentation_Pertinence_Assessment_—_Engineer_X_Departure> a proeth:Case-by-CaseBrochureMisrepresentationPertinenceAssessmentObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer Z Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment — Engineer X Departure" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case174:Three-Party_Interest_Balancing_on_Engineer_X_Departure ;
proeth:casecontext "The Board's analysis in this case and BER 83-1 establishes that the ethical analysis of brochure personnel listing is fact-specific and not governed by categorical rules; Engineer Z's failure to conduct this assessment and take appropriate corrective action constitutes the violation." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case174:Pertinent_Fact_Dual-Element_Test_Applied_to_Engineer_X_Listing,
case174:Pertinent_Fact_Dual-Element_Test_Applied_to_Engineer_Z_Brochure_Conduct ;
proeth:discoveredincase "174" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "174" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer Z (principal, Firm Y)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Case-by-Case Brochure Misrepresentation Pertinence Assessment Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer Z was obligated to conduct a case-by-case assessment of the totality of facts and circumstances surrounding Engineer X's departure — including Engineer X's non-key-employee status, the non-significant percentage of hydrology work, and the absence of highlighting in the brochure — before determining whether continued distribution of the brochure constituted an ethical violation." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon receiving Engineer X's two-week notice" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer X is one of a few engineers in Firm Y with expertise in hydrology, but the firm's work in the field of hydrology does not constitute a significant percentage of the firm's work.",
"Engineer X, an associate with the firm, gives two weeks notice of her intent to move to another firm.",
"Thereafter, Engineer Z, a principal in Firm Y, continues to distribute a brochure identifying Engineer X as an employee of the firm and list Engineer X on the firm resume." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 174 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T12:34:10.122204"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 174 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
174
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
First case
174
Generated
2026-03-01T12:18:26.809431+00:00
Attributed to
Case 174 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T12:34:10.122204
Generated by
ProEthica Case 174 Extraction