Jurisdiction-Specific Licensing Rule Compliance Obligation XYZ Engineers Engineer B Both States

@prefix case19: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/19#> . @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#> . case19:Jurisdiction-Specific_Licensing_Rule_Compliance_Obligation_XYZ_Engineers_Engineer_B_Both_States a proeth:Jurisdiction-SpecificLicensingRuleComplianceinQualificationProposalsObligation, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "Jurisdiction-Specific Licensing Rule Compliance Obligation XYZ Engineers Engineer B Both States" ; proeth-core:competesWith case19:Honesty_in_Professional_Representations_Obligation_XYZ_Engineers_Qualification_Proposals_Both_States ; proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case19:Engineer_B_State_Z_Attribution_Non-Compliance ; proeth:casecontext "XYZ Engineers marketed bridge and culvert design services in both State Q and State Z, submitting qualification proposals that included Engineer B's prior-employer projects. State Z's rules were more specific than State Q's NCEES Model Rules-based provisions, requiring project-level attribution that XYZ Engineers' proposals did not provide." ; proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ; proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ; proeth:confidence "0.88" ; proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case19:Jurisdiction-Specific_Ethics_Compliance_Obligation_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_Multi-State_Review ; proeth:discoveredincase "19" ; proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ; proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00" ; proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "19" ; proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T15:45:16.126630+00:00" ; proeth:importance "high" ; proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer B and XYZ Engineers" ; proeth:obligationclass "Jurisdiction-Specific Licensing Rule Compliance in Qualification Proposals Obligation" ; proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were obligated to identify and comply with the specific attribution and misrepresentation rules of both State Q and State Z when preparing qualification proposals for submission in those jurisdictions, including State Z's more stringent requirement for project-level attribution adjacent to each prior-employer project listing." ; proeth:sourcetext "ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states" ; proeth:temporalscope "Prior to and at the time of submission of qualification proposals in State Q and State Z" ; proeth:textreferences "ABC's competitors, XYZ Engineers, hired a new project manager, Engineer B, with extensive experience in responsible charge of projects in another region, and began to market bridge and culvert designs in both states", "Engineer Q finds that the Rules in State Z, which have a long and unique legislative history, are much more specific", "The State Q Licensing Board Rules, patterned after the NCEES Model Rules, indicate in relevant part that 'presentations incidental to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint ventures or past accomplishments'", "any list of such projects must include, next to the specific project listing, detailed information naming the previous firm and the licensee's specific involvement in the project" ; proeth:wasattributedto "Case 19 Extraction" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T15:58:57.765207"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 19 Extraction" .