Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Contextual Permissibility Applied to Engineer X
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/174#Non-Key-Employee_Brochure_Listing_Contextual_Permissibility_Applied_to_Engineer_X
Properties
Instance of
Non-Key-EmployeeDepartedEngineerBrochureListingContextualPermissibilityObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Non-Key-EmployeeDepartedEngineerBrochureListingContextualPermissibilityObligation
Case context
Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee in Firm Y's brochure; hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's services; Engineer X was not the only engineer with hydrology expertise at the firm.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer Z and Firm Y
Obligation statement
Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to assess whether continued listing of Engineer X — a non-key employee whose area of expertise did not constitute a significant portion of firm services — constituted a misrepresentation of pertinent facts; the Board found that the non-key status and non-significant practice area meant continued listing did not constitute an overt misrepresentation.
Temporal scope
During the two-week notice period and period of continued brochure distribution after departure
Source Evidence
Source text
there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
Text references
Engineer X is not the only engineer in the firm who possesses such expertise.
there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.
this area of practice does not constitute a significant portion of the services provided by Firm Y; therefore it would seem to us that the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute 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 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#> .
case174:Non-Key-Employee_Brochure_Listing_Contextual_Permissibility_Applied_to_Engineer_X a proeth:Non-Key-EmployeeDepartedEngineerBrochureListingContextualPermissibilityObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Non-Key-Employee Brochure Listing Contextual Permissibility Applied to Engineer X" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case174:Engineer_Z_Expeditious_Correction_Obligation_Upon_Engineer_X_Departure_Notice,
case174:Key_Employee_Brochure_Listing_Violation_by_Engineer_B_in_BER_83-1 ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case174:Key_Employee_Brochure_Listing_Violation_by_Engineer_B_in_BER_83-1 ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer X was not highlighted as a key employee in Firm Y's brochure; hydrology was not a significant portion of Firm Y's services; Engineer X was not the only engineer with hydrology expertise at the firm." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case174:Non-Prominent_Personnel_Listing_Materiality_Exculpation_Applied_to_Engineer_X_Listing,
case174:Non-Prominent_Personnel_Listing_Materiality_Exculpation_for_Engineer_X ;
proeth:discoveredincase "174" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "174" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer Z and Firm Y" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Non-Key-Employee Departed Engineer Brochure Listing Contextual Permissibility Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer Z and Firm Y were obligated to assess whether continued listing of Engineer X — a non-key employee whose area of expertise did not constitute a significant portion of firm services — constituted a misrepresentation of pertinent facts; the Board found that the non-key status and non-significant practice area meant continued listing did not constitute an overt misrepresentation." ;
proeth:sourcetext "there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm." ;
proeth:temporalscope "During the two-week notice period and period of continued brochure distribution after departure" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer X is not the only engineer in the firm who possesses such expertise.",
"there is no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe Engineer X as a 'key employee' in the firm.",
"this area of practice does not constitute a significant portion of the services provided by Firm Y; therefore it would seem to us that the inclusion of the name of Engineer X in the firms's brochure and resume would not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 174 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T12:34:10.128406"^^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
2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
First case
174
Generated
2026-03-01T12:24:16.515372+00:00
Attributed to
Case 174 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T12:34:10.128406
Generated by
ProEthica Case 174 Extraction