Applied Despite Prior Failures (Action 1) → Job Offer Extended (Event 2)
BER Case 03-6 is just such a case. Here, Engineer F is a professional engineer and applies for a professional engineering position with an engineering firm.
In finding that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license, the Board referred to Case 97-11 but pointed out a critical distinction: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.'
This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'
Board of Ethical Review to distinguish the present case from situations requiring mandatory disclosure, reinforcing the 'prudent but not required' conclusion for Engineer Intern A
Cited as a contrasting precedent establishing that when an engineer has an actual adjudicated finding of wrongdoing (contractor license revocation), there is an ethical obligation to disclose that fact on an employment application, even when the application question is narrowly worded; distinguishes between mere allegations (no required disclosure) and actual demonstrated violations (required disclosure)
In BER Case 19-1, Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer.
In the present case, similar to Case 19-11, the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring
The Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure. In that case, the Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy.
Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of PE exam failures
Cited as precedent establishing that an engineer's failure to voluntarily disclose a personal medical condition (autism/Asperger's Syndrome) to an employer does not violate the NSPE Code of Ethics; establishes the principle of personal privacy rights in employment contexts and that non-disclosure of personal information is not equivalent to deception or misrepresentation
BER Case 97-11 relates how, during the rendering of services to Client B on a manufacturing project, the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C.
In finding that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C, the Board noted that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee...
No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice—allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11.
Board of Ethical Review in determining that Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of PE exam failures was not ethically required but was imprudent
Cited as the primary analogical precedent for the present case; establishes that an engineer is not automatically required to disclose a pending ethics complaint (a mere allegation) to a current client, but must weigh all factors and take prudent action; also establishes the balancing test between privacy rights and the obligation to avoid material omissions of fact
BER Analogical Precedent Triangulation Cases 19-1 97-11 03-6
Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
The BER demonstrated advanced analogical precedent triangulation capability by identifying three partially overlapping precedents (Cases 19-1, 97-11, 03-6), distinguishing their critical factual differences, and determining that Engineer Intern A's situation was most analogous to Case 97-11 while acknowledging the finely nuanced balance
BER analysis of Engineer Intern A's pre-employment non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures
The BER's systematic comparison of Cases 19-1 (medical condition non-disclosure, privacy prevails), 97-11 (pending allegation, no compelled disclosure), and 03-6 (adjudicated revocation, disclosure required) to determine which precedent governed Engineer Intern A's situation
In the present case, similar to Case 19-11, the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before. But as in Case 97-11 and Case 03-6, privacy considerations are not the whole story.
BER Career Phase Ethics Continuity Recognition
Career-Phase Ethics Continuity Recognition Capability
Engineer Intern A needed the capability to recognize that professional ethical obligations — including disclosure obligations in employment contexts — apply fully during the intern phase of his career, not only after licensure
Engineer Intern A's navigation of employment disclosure obligations as an unlicensed engineer intern
The BER's affirmation that ethical obligations apply throughout all phases of an engineering career, starting with engineering school and emerging through the intern phase
the privileges, aspirations, and obligations of engineering work apply throughout all phases of an engineer's career, starting with engineering school, emerging through the intern phase, and continuing through practice
the ethics of an engineer's employment lie squarely within the Board's purview
CausalLink_Applied Despite Prior Failures
CausalLink_Hired Without Asking About Exa
CausalLink_Omitted Prior Exam Failures at
{'project_type': 'Manufacturing project', 'awareness': 'Learned of complaint through third party, not from Engineer A'}
Client B was receiving engineering services from Engineer A on a manufacturing project when an ethics complaint was filed against Engineer A by Client C. Client B later learned of the complaint through a third party and expressed that Engineer A should have disclosed it.
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 97-11 Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer'}
during the rendering of services to Client B on a manufacturing project
Client B learned of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
told Engineer A that he was upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Client B's attention
It was imprudent but not unethical for Engineer Intern A not to have mentioned at the interview his two previous failures to pass the PE exam, as the question was not asked by XYZ Consultants.
The Board's 'imprudent but not unethical' finding rests on a question-dependent disclosure standard that, while defensible in isolation, fails to account for the materiality threshold embedded in the NSPE Code's prohibition on omissions that create false impressions. Engineer Intern A did not merely remain silent on an irrelevant biographical detail; he remained silent on the precise qualification fact — two prior PE exam failures — that was directly constitutive of the hiring condition XYZ Consultants had made explicit. When an employer states that PE licensure within 90 days is a condition of hire, and a candidate knows he has already failed twice, his silence about those failures is not a neutral omission but a representation by conduct that he is realistically positioned to satisfy that condition. Code provision III.3.a prohibits statements containing material omissions that create false impressions, and the Board's analysis does not adequately explain why a candidate's affirmative presentation of himself as 'on track' to pass the PE exam — without disclosing two prior failures — falls outside that prohibition. The Board's shared-responsibility framing, which credits XYZ Consultants' failure to ask as a partial exculpation, inappropriately conditions Engineer Intern A's individual honesty obligation on the employer's investigative diligence, thereby weakening the Code's objectivity and truthfulness standard as an independent professional norm.
The Board's conclusion does not address the temporal dimension of Engineer Intern A's disclosure obligation, which shifts materially once he accepts the offer and the 90-day licensure clock begins running. Even if one accepts the Board's finding that pre-interview silence was not unethical because no question was asked, a distinct and stronger obligation arises at the moment Engineer Intern A accepts employment under an explicit licensure condition. At that point, he transitions from a job applicant with a privacy interest in his exam history to a faithful agent who has contractually committed to achieving licensure within a defined period. The faithful agent obligation under the NSPE Code requires engineers to act in the interest of their employers and to notify them of facts material to the engagement. Engineer Intern A's knowledge that he had already failed twice — and therefore faced a statistically and regulatorily more precarious path to satisfying the 90-day condition — was precisely the kind of material risk information that a faithful agent is obligated to disclose. The Board's analysis conflates the pre-hire interview context with the post-acceptance employment context, treating them as governed by the same permissive standard, when in fact the ethical weight of disclosure increases substantially once the employment relationship and its attendant conditions are formally established. A more complete analysis would have found that while pre-interview silence may have been merely imprudent, post-acceptance silence about known licensure risk crossed into a breach of the faithful agent obligation.
The Board's reasoning is further undermined by the analogical precedent established in BER Case 03-6, in which Engineer F was found to have an obligation to disclose a contractor license revocation on an employment application even though the application did not explicitly ask about non-engineering license disciplinary history. The Board in that case held that the materiality of the omitted fact — its direct relevance to the employer's assessment of the candidate's fitness — created an affirmative disclosure duty independent of whether the question was specifically posed. Engineer Intern A's two prior PE exam failures are at least as material to XYZ Consultants' hiring decision as Engineer F's contractor license revocation was to his prospective employer, because the PE exam history bears directly on the candidate's realistic ability to satisfy the explicit 90-day licensure condition. The Board's failure to engage with this precedent in the present case creates an internal inconsistency in the BER's ethical framework: it is difficult to reconcile a finding that Engineer F had an affirmative duty to disclose a collateral license revocation with a finding that Engineer Intern A had no affirmative duty to disclose directly job-relevant exam failures. A consistent application of the materiality-based disclosure standard from BER Case 03-6 would support a finding that Engineer Intern A's omission was not merely imprudent but ethically deficient under Code provisions I.5, II.3.a, and III.3.a, regardless of whether XYZ Consultants asked the right questions.
In response to Q101: Engineer Intern A's silence about two prior PE exam failures did constitute an implicit misrepresentation that he was realistically on track to satisfy the 90-day licensure condition. When XYZ Consultants made PE licensure within 90 days an explicit hiring condition, and Engineer Intern A represented at the interview that he intended to take the PE exam 'in the coming weeks,' the totality of that representation carried an implicit warranty of reasonable prospect of success. A candidate who has already failed the exam twice occupies a materially different position than a first-time candidate, and the statistical and regulatory realities of repeated failure — including the State X board's additional requirements after a third failure — were facts that directly bore on whether the 90-day condition was achievable. By presenting himself as a candidate on track for licensure without disclosing the two prior failures, Engineer Intern A allowed XYZ Consultants to form a false impression of his licensure trajectory. Code provision III.3.a, which prohibits statements containing material omissions that create false impressions, is directly implicated here. The omission was not merely imprudent; it created a materially false picture of Engineer Intern A's qualification status relative to the stated hiring condition, bringing the conduct closer to the boundary of ethical violation than the Board's conclusion acknowledges.
In response to Q102: Engineer Intern A's affirmative duty to disclose his prior exam failures crystallized no later than the moment he accepted the job offer with the 90-day licensure condition attached. Before acceptance, one might argue that the omission was a permissible silence in a competitive hiring context. But once Engineer Intern A accepted an offer whose central qualifying condition he had twice already failed to meet, his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Consultants — grounded in Code provisions I.6 and the faithful agent notification obligation — required him to ensure his employer was not operating under a materially false assumption about the feasibility of that condition. The 90-day clock began running at hire, and XYZ Consultants' ability to make informed decisions about staffing, project assignments, and contingency planning depended on accurate information about Engineer Intern A's licensure prospects. At the very latest, the duty to disclose arose at the commencement of employment, when the licensure condition became an active contractual and professional obligation rather than a prospective hiring criterion. The Board's framing, which treats the omission as a pre-hire matter governed solely by whether the question was asked, fails to account for the post-acceptance transformation of the omission from a competitive silence into a breach of the faithful agent relationship.
In response to Q103: The Board's shared-responsibility framing — noting that XYZ Consultants failed to ask about exam history — does inappropriately dilute Engineer Intern A's individual ethical accountability. The NSPE Code's honesty and non-deception provisions are not conditioned on whether an employer asks the right questions. Code provision I.5 requires engineers to avoid deceptive acts, and III.3.a prohibits material omissions that create false impressions, without any qualifier that these obligations are activated only by direct inquiry. By distributing moral responsibility between Engineer Intern A's silence and XYZ Consultants' failure to probe, the Board implicitly adopts a question-and-answer model of professional honesty that is inconsistent with the Code's affirmative character. An engineer's obligation to be truthful and non-deceptive in professional representations is an independent duty, not a reactive one triggered by interrogation. The practical consequence of the Board's framing is that it creates a perverse incentive structure: engineers learn that material omissions are ethically permissible so long as employers fail to ask the precise question that would have elicited the damaging information. This outcome-dependent standard undermines the profession's integrity norms and is particularly problematic in hiring contexts where information asymmetry structurally favors the candidate.
In response to Q104: BER Case 03-6, in which Engineer F was found to have an obligation to disclose a contractor license revocation on an employment application even though the application form did not explicitly ask about non-engineering license disciplinary history, provides strong analogical support for the conclusion that Engineer Intern A should have volunteered his prior PE exam failures without being asked. The analogical parallel is direct: in both cases, the undisclosed information was a material qualification fact bearing on the candidate's fitness for the specific role being sought; in both cases, the employer's failure to ask the precise question did not extinguish the candidate's disclosure obligation; and in both cases, the omission created a false impression of the candidate's professional standing. The key distinction the Board might draw — that a license revocation is an adjudicated adverse finding while exam failures are merely performance outcomes — does not hold under scrutiny when the hiring condition explicitly requires licensure within 90 days. In that context, two prior failures are not merely biographical data points; they are directly probative of the candidate's realistic ability to satisfy the central condition of employment, making them functionally equivalent in materiality to the revocation at issue in Case 03-6. The Board's failure to engage with this precedent in reaching its 'imprudent but not unethical' conclusion represents a significant gap in its analogical reasoning.
In response to Q201: The personal privacy right recognized in BER 19-1 — which protected Engineer A's non-disclosure of an autism diagnosis — does not extend to shield Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures, because the two categories of information are ethically distinguishable in kind, not merely in degree. BER 19-1 involved a medical condition that is protected under disability law frameworks, carries social stigma unrelated to professional competence, and whose non-disclosure does not create a false impression about a candidate's ability to satisfy a stated hiring condition. PE exam failure history, by contrast, is a direct performance record on the precise professional qualification that the employer has made a condition of hire. It is not a personal characteristic but a professional qualification history. The objectivity and truthfulness obligation under Code provision II.3.a applies with full force to representations about professional qualifications, and the privacy interest in exam failure history — while real — is substantially weaker than the privacy interest in medical diagnoses. When the omitted information is not a personal attribute but a direct measure of the candidate's track record on the specific credential the employer requires, the balance between privacy and truthfulness tips decisively toward disclosure, and the BER 19-1 precedent provides no meaningful shelter.
In response to Q203 and Q204: The tension between the Employer Hiring Due Diligence principle and the Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure principle should not be resolved by treating them as equally weighted competing obligations that cancel each other out — which is effectively what the Board's 'imprudent but not unethical' conclusion does. These principles operate at different levels of the ethical architecture. The employer's due diligence obligation is a prudential best-practice norm that, when neglected, exposes the employer to foreseeable risk; it is not a condition precedent that must be satisfied before the candidate's honesty obligations activate. The candidate's disclosure obligation, by contrast, is grounded in the Code's affirmative honesty provisions and the faithful agent relationship, both of which are independent of whether the employer asks the right questions. Regarding Q204, the Board's reliance on the Prudential Disclosure Self-Protection principle — counseling Engineer Intern A to disclose in his own long-term interest — is ethically weaker than grounding the disclosure norm in the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation. Framing disclosure as self-interested prudence rather than a duty owed to the employer transforms an ethical obligation into a strategic calculation, which undermines the normative force of the disclosure standard. The correct analytical move is to ground the disclosure obligation in the faithful agent relationship and the Code's honesty provisions, and to treat the prudential self-protection rationale as a secondary, reinforcing consideration rather than the primary basis for the norm.
In response to Q301 and Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer Intern A did not fully discharge his duty of honesty toward XYZ Consultants by remaining silent about two prior PE exam failures. The Kantian universalizability test is instructive: if every engineer-in-training applying for positions with explicit licensure conditions were permitted to omit prior exam failure history whenever the employer failed to ask, the institution of professional hiring would be systematically undermined, as employers could never rely on candidates' representations about their qualification trajectories. This outcome is self-defeating and therefore fails the universalizability test. More directly, Code provision III.3.a prohibits statements containing material omissions that create false impressions, and this prohibition functions as a deontological rule — it does not contain an exception for omissions that go undetected because the employer failed to probe. The absence of an explicit question from XYZ Consultants does not relieve Engineer Intern A of the duty because the duty is grounded in the nature of the representation being made, not in the interrogative structure of the interview. When Engineer Intern A represented himself as a candidate on track for licensure within 90 days, he implicitly represented that his exam history was consistent with that trajectory. The two prior failures were directly inconsistent with that implicit representation, and the Code's prohibition on material omissions required him to correct the false impression regardless of whether he was asked.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist standpoint, Engineer Intern A's silence about his prior exam failures produced a net harm that substantially outweighed any short-term benefit of securing employment. The harms were multiple and compounding: XYZ Consultants made a hiring decision based on a materially incomplete picture of Engineer Intern A's licensure prospects, committing resources, project assignments, and client commitments on the assumption that a licensed PE would be available within 90 days; the trust relationship between Engineer Intern A and his supervisor was materially undermined when the third failure and the State X regulatory bar were disclosed; Engineer Intern A's own career position was rendered more precarious than if he had disclosed upfront and potentially negotiated a modified timeline or a different role; and the profession's reputation for honest self-representation was marginally but genuinely harmed. The only consequentialist benefit of the non-disclosure — securing the job offer — was inherently unstable, as it depended on a condition (passing the PE exam on the third attempt) that Engineer Intern A's own track record made uncertain. A consequentialist analysis that accounts for the full probability-weighted outcomes, including the foreseeable risk of a third failure and its regulatory consequences in State X, would have counseled disclosure as the utility-maximizing strategy. The Board's 'imprudent but not unethical' conclusion is consistent with this consequentialist analysis insofar as it acknowledges imprudence, but the magnitude of the net harm supports a stronger ethical finding.
In response to Q303: Applying virtue ethics, Engineer Intern A failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and practical wisdom expected of an engineer-in-training. The virtue of practical wisdom — phronesis — requires not merely knowing the rules but perceiving the ethically salient features of a situation and responding appropriately. A practically wise engineer-in-training, aware that he had twice failed the PE exam and was applying for a position that made licensure within 90 days a condition of hire, would have recognized that his exam history was directly material to the employer's decision and that remaining silent about it, while technically permissible under a narrow question-and-answer standard, was inconsistent with the character of an honest professional. The virtue of integrity — understood as alignment between one's inner knowledge and one's outward representations — was compromised when Engineer Intern A allowed XYZ Consultants to form an impression of his licensure trajectory that his own experience contradicted. The virtue of courage, which in professional contexts includes the willingness to disclose unflattering but relevant information, was also absent. The Board's 'imprudent but not unethical' conclusion captures the prudential failure but understates the virtue-ethical dimension: the conduct reflects not merely a strategic miscalculation but a deficit in the character traits — honesty, integrity, and practical wisdom — that the NSPE Code's preamble identifies as foundational to professional engineering practice.
In response to Q402 and Q404: The Board's analysis reveals a troubling question-dependence in its disclosure standard that, if taken to its logical conclusion, produces inconsistent and outcome-sensitive ethical guidance. Q402 exposes the core problem: if XYZ Consultants had directly asked about prior exam attempts, the Board would almost certainly have found that a false or evasive answer constituted a clear ethical violation. But the ethical character of the omission — its materiality, its effect on the employer's decision, its inconsistency with the candidate's implicit representation of being on track — does not change based on whether the question was asked. The information was equally material in both scenarios; only the mechanism of its concealment differed. Q404 further exposes the outcome-dependence of the Board's standard: if Engineer Intern A had passed the PE exam on his third attempt, the non-disclosure of two prior failures would likely have been treated as entirely inconsequential, even though the ethical quality of the omission at the time it was made was identical. An ethical standard that is retroactively validated or invalidated by subsequent outcomes is not a principled standard; it is a results-oriented rationalization. The Board's 'imprudent but not unethical' conclusion, evaluated against these counterfactuals, appears to be influenced by the fact that the non-disclosure was ultimately discovered and caused harm, rather than by a principled analysis of the disclosure obligation at the time of the interview. A more coherent standard would assess the ethics of the omission based on the information available and the obligations in force at the time of the interview, independent of subsequent outcomes.
The Board resolved the tension between the Personal Privacy Right and the Objectivity and Truthfulness Obligation by treating exam failure history as a personal qualification fact rather than a protected personal characteristic, yet it stopped short of imposing an affirmative disclosure duty. This resolution is analytically unstable. The privacy rationale that shielded Engineer A's autism diagnosis in BER 19-1 rested on the fact that a medical condition is categorically distinct from job performance capacity. Prior PE exam failures, by contrast, are not personal attributes — they are direct, objective evidence of whether a hiring condition can realistically be met. When the undisclosed fact is the very metric by which the employer's stated hiring condition is measured, the privacy interest collapses into the materiality analysis, and the Objectivity and Truthfulness Obligation should dominate. The Board's failure to draw this distinction explicitly leaves the privacy-versus-materiality boundary undefined in precisely the cases where it matters most.
The Employer Hiring Due Diligence principle and the Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure principle were treated by the Board as mutually offsetting — XYZ Consultants' failure to ask about exam history effectively absorbed a portion of the ethical burden that would otherwise fall entirely on Engineer Intern A. This shared-responsibility framing is pedagogically problematic because it calibrates an engineer's honesty obligations to the sophistication of the employer's questioning, rather than to the materiality of the omitted fact. The NSPE Code's prohibition on material misrepresentation by omission in Code provision III.3.a. does not contain a question-dependence exception: the standard is whether a statement or omission creates a false impression, not whether the deceived party asked the right question. By allowing the employer's due diligence deficit to dilute the engineer's individual honesty obligation, the Board implicitly adopted a standard closer to caveat emptor than to the affirmative candor expected of a licensed professional. The more defensible synthesis would weight the Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure principle as primary when the omitted fact is directly material to a stated hiring condition, and treat Employer Hiring Due Diligence as a secondary, mitigating factor relevant to remedy and relational responsibility — but not as a factor that reduces the engineer's independent ethical accountability.
The tension between the Prudential Disclosure Self-Protection principle and the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation reveals a structural weakness in the Board's reasoning: by framing voluntary disclosure primarily as a matter of prudence — something Engineer Intern A should have done for his own relational benefit — the Board displaced the deontological core of the disclosure norm. The Faithful Agent Notification Obligation, grounded in Code provisions I.6. and II.3.a., frames disclosure as a duty owed to the employer because the employer's decision-making capacity depends on accurate information. When these two rationales are conflated, as the Board's imprudence finding implicitly does, the ethical force of the disclosure norm is weakened: an engineer who calculates that non-disclosure serves his short-term interest can rationalize the omission as merely imprudent rather than wrong. The analogical precedent from BER Case 03-6, in which Engineer F was found to have an obligation to disclose a contractor license revocation without being asked, demonstrates that the Board has previously recognized an affirmative disclosure duty grounded in faithful agency rather than self-interest. The synthesis that best honors both the Code and the precedent is that the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation should be treated as the primary operative principle when pre-hire omissions concern facts material to a stated employment condition, with Prudential Disclosure Self-Protection serving only as a reinforcing, secondary rationale — not as a substitute for the deontological duty.
Was Engineer Intern A ethically obligated to proactively disclose his two prior PE exam failures at the interview, even though XYZ Consultants never asked about prior exam attempts?
Engineer Intern A's pre-employment silence about two prior PE exam failures when applying for a position explicitly conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days — weighing the candidate's personal privacy interest and the employer's failure to ask against the materiality-based disclosure obligation and the implicit representation of being on track for licensure.
Proactively volunteer the two prior PE exam failures at the interview, framing them in context of preparation and confidence in the upcoming attempt, so that XYZ Consultants can make an informed offer with accurate knowledge of the licensure trajectory
Remain silent about prior exam failures in the absence of a direct question, relying on the employer's responsibility to conduct its own due diligence and on the candidate's reasonable belief that a third attempt will succeed, while accurately representing the intent to sit for the exam imminently
Disclose the prior exam failures only if directly asked, but proactively request that the employer clarify or extend the 90-day licensure condition before accepting the offer, thereby surfacing the licensure risk without volunteering the specific failure history
Did Engineer Intern A have an affirmative ethical duty to volunteer his two prior PE exam failures at the interview with XYZ Consultants, given that the firm made PE licensure within 90 days an explicit condition of hire, even though he was never directly asked about his exam history?
Engineer Intern A: PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Assessment at Pre-Employment Interview
Remain silent about prior exam failures at the interview, relying on the employer's failure to ask as establishing that the information was not required, while affirmatively representing intent to sit for the exam imminently
Proactively disclose both prior PE exam failures at the interview as directly material to the employer's stated 90-day licensure condition, framing the disclosure as part of an honest account of one's qualification trajectory
Decline to volunteer prior exam failures at the interview but, upon accepting the offer, proactively disclose the two prior failures to the employer before the 90-day licensure clock begins running, treating acceptance as the point at which the faithful agent obligation to disclose material risk crystallizes
Once Engineer Intern A accepted employment under the 90-day licensure condition and subsequently failed the PE exam a third time — triggering State X's additional requirements — did his obligation to promptly disclose that failure to XYZ Consultants arise from a deontological faithful agent duty owed to his employer, from prudential self-interest in protecting the employment relationship, or from both, and does the grounding of that obligation affect its ethical force?
Engineer Intern A: Post-Hire Faithful Agent Notification Obligation vs. Prudential Self-Protection After Third PE Exam Failure
Promptly disclose the third PE exam failure and its State X regulatory consequences to XYZ Consultants as a faithful agent duty owed to the employer, framing the notification as fulfillment of a professional obligation to ensure the employer can make informed staffing and project decisions
Disclose the third PE exam failure to XYZ Consultants after first consulting with a professional advisor or attorney to assess the employment consequences, treating the disclosure as a strategic relational decision rather than an immediate professional duty
Disclose the third PE exam failure to XYZ Consultants while simultaneously presenting a concrete remediation plan — including a timeline for satisfying State X's additional requirements — framing the disclosure as a proactive faithful agent notification paired with a proposed path to fulfilling the employment condition
Does the personal privacy right recognized in BER 19-1 — which protected a medical condition from mandatory pre-employment disclosure — extend to shield Engineer Intern A's prior PE exam failures from an affirmative disclosure duty, or does the direct measurability of exam failures against the employer's stated hiring condition collapse the privacy interest into the materiality analysis such that the Objectivity and Truthfulness Obligation requires proactive disclosure regardless of whether the question was asked?
Engineer Intern A: Privacy-Versus-Materiality Boundary and the Adequacy of a Question-Dependent Disclosure Standard for Pre-Employment Qualification History
Treat prior PE exam failures as personal qualification history protected by a privacy interest equivalent in kind (though not degree) to the medical condition in BER 19-1, remaining silent at the interview on the ground that the employer's failure to ask establishes that the information was not required for the hiring decision
Treat prior PE exam failures as categorically distinct from protected personal characteristics because they are the direct objective measure of the employer's stated hiring condition, and proactively disclose them at the interview as required by the Objectivity and Truthfulness Obligation regardless of whether the question was asked
Decline to volunteer prior exam failures at the interview on privacy grounds but affirmatively ask XYZ Consultants to clarify the 90-day licensure condition and its flexibility, thereby creating an opportunity for the employer to elicit the relevant history through its own due diligence inquiry without unilaterally imposing a disclosure obligation on oneself
When applying for a position that explicitly conditions employment on achieving PE licensure within 90 days, and knowing he had already failed the PE exam twice, was Engineer Intern A ethically obligated to volunteer that exam failure history at the interview even though XYZ Consultants never asked about prior exam attempts?
Engineer Intern A Pre-Employment PE Exam Failure Disclosure Decision
Remain silent about prior PE exam failures at the interview, relying on the employer's failure to ask as relieving any affirmative disclosure duty, and disclose only upon direct inquiry or when a material post-hire change occurs (such as a third failure)
Proactively disclose both prior PE exam failures at the interview as part of a candid representation of licensure trajectory, treating the two failures as material qualification facts directly bearing on the employer's stated 90-day licensure condition
Remain silent about prior PE exam failures at the interview but, upon accepting the offer and before commencing employment, proactively disclose the two prior failures to the employer as a faithful agent notification of material risk bearing on the 90-day licensure condition
After accepting employment conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days and then failing the PE exam a third time with State X board-imposed additional requirements triggered, was Engineer Intern A ethically obligated to notify XYZ Consultants promptly and to disclose the full scope of the board-imposed restrictions — not merely the fact of the failure?
Engineer Intern A's post-hire obligation — once employed under the 90-day licensure condition — to notify XYZ Consultants promptly and completely upon learning that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that the State X licensing board had imposed additional requirements before he could re-sit the examination, including the scope and likely duration of those board-imposed impediments.
Promptly notify XYZ Consultants of the third exam failure and fully disclose the nature, scope, and likely duration of all board-imposed additional requirements, enabling the employer to immediately reassess project staffing, client commitments, and the feasibility of the original 90-day licensure condition
Notify XYZ Consultants of the third exam failure promptly but defer full disclosure of the board-imposed additional requirements until their scope and duration are formally confirmed by the State X board, to avoid conveying speculative or incomplete regulatory information to the employer
Disclose the third exam failure to the supervisor as a personal employment matter while simultaneously consulting with the State X board and a licensing attorney to develop a concrete remediation plan, then present the employer with both the failure disclosure and a proposed revised licensure timeline as a package, minimizing disruption to the employment relationship
Should the Board treat XYZ Consultants' failure to ask about prior PE exam attempts as a factor that partially absorbs Engineer Intern A's individual disclosure obligation — producing a shared-responsibility finding — or should the engineer's affirmative honesty duty under the NSPE Code be assessed independently of the employer's investigative diligence, with the employer's due diligence failure treated only as a secondary mitigating factor relevant to remedy rather than to the existence of the ethical obligation?
The structural tension between the Employer Hiring Due Diligence Obligation — which places responsibility on XYZ Consultants to inquire about prior exam attempts when imposing a licensure condition — and the Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation — which places an affirmative honesty burden on Engineer Intern A independent of whether the question was asked — and whether these principles should be treated as equally weighted competing obligations that share and thereby dilute the ethical burden, or as obligations operating at different levels of the ethical architecture with the candidate's honesty duty as primary.
Treat the employer's failure to ask about prior exam attempts as a partial exculpating factor that, combined with the candidate's privacy interest in exam history, supports a shared-responsibility finding in which the omission is imprudent but not an independent ethics violation
Assess the engineer's pre-employment disclosure obligation independently of whether the employer asked, treating the materiality of the omitted fact — two prior failures directly bearing on a 90-day licensure condition — as sufficient to trigger an affirmative disclosure duty under III.3.a, with the employer's due diligence failure treated only as a secondary factor relevant to remedy and relational responsibility
Apply a graduated materiality standard that treats the employer's failure to ask as fully exculpating when the omitted information is personal or biographical in character, but as insufficient to excuse omission when the undisclosed fact is the direct metric by which the employer's stated hiring condition is measured — finding the omission in this case to cross the materiality threshold and constitute an ethics violation despite the employer's due diligence failure
Engineering Firm Hiring Authority (XYZ Consultants)
Should Engineer Intern A have voluntarily disclosed his two prior PE exam failures at the interview with XYZ Consultants, given that PE licensure within 90 days was an explicit condition of hire, even though XYZ Consultants never asked about prior exam attempts?
Engineer Intern A: Pre-Interview Disclosure of Prior PE Exam Failures Under a Licensure Condition of Hire
Remain silent about prior exam failures at the interview, relying on the employer's failure to ask as relieving any affirmative disclosure obligation, while genuinely intending to pass on the next attempt
Proactively disclose both prior PE exam failures at the interview and represent the specific steps being taken to prepare for the next attempt, allowing XYZ Consultants to make a fully informed hiring decision
Disclose prior exam attempt history only upon accepting the offer and before the 90-day licensure clock begins running, treating pre-offer silence as permissible competitive privacy but post-acceptance silence as a breach of the faithful agent relationship
Once Engineer Intern A failed the PE exam a third time and triggered State X's additional requirements — making the 90-day licensure condition impossible to satisfy — did his faithful agent obligation require him to disclose this immediately and fully to his supervisor at XYZ Consultants, and does that post-hire disclosure obligation exist independently of whether the pre-hire omission was itself ethical?
Engineer Intern A: Post-Hire Faithful Agent Obligation to Disclose Third PE Exam Failure and State X Regulatory Bar to Supervisor
Disclose the third exam failure and the resulting State X regulatory bar to the supervisor promptly after receiving the results, providing full information about the impact on the 90-day licensure condition
Disclose the third exam failure to the supervisor but defer full disclosure of the State X regulatory bar and its timeline implications until after independently consulting with the State X licensing board about available remediation pathways
Disclose the third failure, the State X regulatory bar, and the two prior failures simultaneously to the supervisor, providing complete exam history context so the employer can make a fully informed decision about the employment relationship going forward
Should XYZ Consultants' hiring authority have asked Engineer Intern A directly about prior PE exam attempts before extending an offer conditioned on licensure within 90 days, and does the employer's failure to exercise this due diligence appropriately share moral responsibility for the subsequent trust breakdown — or does it improperly dilute Engineer Intern A's independent honesty obligation?
XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority: Due Diligence Obligation to Inquire About Prior PE Exam Attempts When Imposing a Licensure Condition of Hire
Extend the offer without asking about prior PE exam attempts, relying on the candidate's affirmative representations and treating exam history as information the candidate would volunteer if material
Ask directly about prior PE exam attempts and failures as a standard component of the interview process whenever a licensure condition is imposed, treating this inquiry as a basic due diligence step equivalent to verifying educational credentials
Require candidates to complete a written pre-employment qualification disclosure form that specifically asks about prior PE exam attempts and results before extending any offer conditioned on licensure, formalizing the due diligence inquiry as a structural hiring practice
Should Engineer Intern A have voluntarily disclosed his two prior PE exam failures to XYZ Consultants at the interview, given that the employer made PE licensure within 90 days an explicit condition of hire but did not directly ask about prior exam attempts?
Engineer Intern A: Pre-Employment PE Exam Failure History Disclosure at Interview
Proactively disclose both prior PE exam failures at the interview, framing them as context for the candidate's preparation plan and realistic timeline for satisfying the 90-day licensure condition
Remain silent about prior exam failures at the interview on the grounds that the employer did not ask, while genuinely intending to pass on the third attempt and relying on the employer's own due diligence to surface any concerns about exam history
Remain silent about prior failures at the interview but proactively disclose them to XYZ Consultants immediately upon accepting the offer, before the 90-day licensure clock begins running, so the employer can make an informed staffing and contingency decision
Once Engineer Intern A accepted the offer and the 90-day licensure clock began running, did his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Consultants require him to disclose his two prior PE exam failures as material risk information bearing on the feasibility of the employment condition — independent of whether the pre-hire silence was itself unethical?
Engineer Intern A: Post-Acceptance Faithful Agent Disclosure of Known Licensure Risk Once Employment Commences
Disclose both prior PE exam failures to XYZ Consultants at the commencement of employment, before the 90-day clock begins running, so the employer can make informed decisions about staffing, project assignments, and contingency planning
Proceed with employment without disclosing prior failures at commencement, on the basis that the pre-hire silence was not unethical and that the faithful agent obligation is satisfied by diligently preparing for and promptly disclosing the outcome of the third exam attempt
Disclose prior exam failures to the direct supervisor shortly after commencing employment — framed as a proactive risk briefing rather than a correction of a pre-hire omission — so the employer can assess contingency options while Engineer Intern A prepares for the third attempt
Should XYZ Consultants' hiring authority have proactively inquired about Engineer Intern A's prior PE exam attempt history as a matter of due diligence when extending an offer conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days, and does the employer's failure to ask appropriately dilute Engineer Intern A's individual disclosure obligation?
XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority: Employer Due Diligence Obligation to Inquire About PE Exam History When Imposing a Licensure Condition of Hire
Directly ask the candidate at the interview about prior PE exam attempts and the number of failures as a standard due diligence step when imposing a 90-day licensure condition, treating this inquiry as a non-negotiable element of the hiring process for any position requiring near-term licensure
Extend the offer without asking about prior exam attempts, relying on the candidate's professional honesty obligation to volunteer material qualification information and treating the employer's due diligence responsibility as satisfied by imposing the explicit 90-day licensure condition in the offer terms
Extend a conditional offer that explicitly requires the candidate to certify in writing the number of prior PE exam attempts as part of the offer acceptance documentation, thereby formalizing the disclosure obligation without requiring the hiring authority to anticipate every material qualification question during the interview itself
Disclosed Third Exam Failure (Action 4) → State X Additional Requirements Triggered (Event 5) — surfacing of full causal chain and consequences
Employer Hiring Due Diligence Invoked By XYZ Consultants
XYZ Consultants interview and hiring process for Engineer Intern A
Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation
XYZ Consultants, having advertised a position with an explicit 90-day PE licensure requirement, failed to ask Engineer Intern A about prior examination attempts or current examination eligibility during the interview, thereby contributing to the information asymmetry that led to a hiring decision based on an incomplete picture of the candidate's qualification trajectory
When a firm sets an explicit licensure timeline as a condition of employment, it assumes a corresponding obligation to conduct reasonable due diligence about the candidate's ability to meet that condition; the firm's failure to ask about prior exam attempts is a contributing factor to the resulting situation, though it does not eliminate the candidate's own disclosure obligation
XYZ Consultants Engineering Firm Hiring Authority
Employer Hiring Due Diligence Obligation
The shared responsibility between candidate and employer means that both parties bear some ethical accountability for the information gap; the firm's failure to ask reduces but does not eliminate the candidate's independent disclosure duty
The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire.
XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.
Engineer A Autism Non-Disclosure Privacy State
During hiring process and employment; resolved by Board finding that disclosure was not compelled
Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer
Privacy Right vs. Material Omission Tension State
Engineer A's decision not to disclose autism (Asperger's Syndrome) to prospective employer
Board's determination that NSPE Code does not compel disclosure of medical condition; Engineer A had personal right to privacy
he stopped short of pointing out that he had autism, more specifically, Asperger's Syndrome
the Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy
the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure
Engineer A's decision not to disclose autism diagnosis from fear of discrimination and career limitation
Engineer A BER 19-1 Autism Non-Disclosure Privacy Boundary
Engineer A failed to disclose his autism diagnosis to his employer out of fear of discrimination and career limitation, without lying or misrepresenting his qualifications.
Privacy Right Material Omission Boundary Constraint
Engineer A's decision not to disclose his autism (Asperger's Syndrome) to his prospective employer was within the bounds of his privacy right, because the medical condition did not constitute a material omission that would have rendered his professional representations false or misleading — the NSPE Code does not compel disclosure of personal medical conditions.
Pre-employment interview and hiring process
the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.'
Engineer A BER 19-1 Medical Condition Non-Disclosure Privacy Protection
Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition (autism/Asperger's Syndrome) to a prospective employer out of fear of discrimination. The Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy and that non-disclosure was ethically permissible.
Allegation Non-Compelled Disclosure Privacy Protection Obligation
Engineer A was not ethically compelled to disclose his autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis to a prospective employer, as the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel such disclosure and Engineer A retained a personal right to privacy regarding his medical condition.
In BER Case 19-1, Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer. The engineer did not lie, falsify statements, compromise the highest standards of honesty or integrity, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his obtaining employment, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had autism, more specifically, Asperger's Syndrome.
During pre-employment interactions with the prospective employer
Engineer A BER 19-1 PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
{'condition': "Autism (Asperger's Syndrome)", 'disclosure_action': 'Did not disclose medical condition', 'board_finding': 'Non-disclosure was ethical; personal right to privacy applies', 'deception': 'None — no lies or misrepresentations made'}
Engineer A in BER Case 19-1 failed to disclose a medical condition (autism/Asperger's Syndrome) to a prospective employer out of fear of discrimination. The Board found that the NSPE Code does not compel disclosure of medical conditions and that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy, establishing a precedent for the non-disclosure analysis applied to Engineer Intern A.
{'type': 'applicant_to', 'target': 'Engineering Employer'}
the Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure
the engineer did not lie, falsify statements, compromise the highest standards of honesty or integrity, or misrepresent his qualifications
Engineer A BER 19-1 Privacy vs Disclosure Balancing
Privacy Right vs Material Omission Obligation Balancing Capability
Engineer A in BER 19-1 exercised the capability to recognize that his privacy interest in non-disclosure of his autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis was not overridden by any material omission obligation, correctly determining that the NSPE Code does not compel disclosure of personal medical conditions
Engineer A's decision not to disclose his autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis to a prospective employer out of fear of discrimination
The BER's finding that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy and was not compelled to disclose his medical condition, as it did not constitute a material fact requiring disclosure in the employment context
The Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure.
Engineer A BER 97-11 Allegation vs Adjudication Threshold Assessment
Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Discrimination Capability
Engineer A in BER 97-11 correctly assessed that a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C was a mere allegation that did not compel automatic disclosure to Client B, distinguishing between unproven allegations and adjudicated findings
Engineer A's decision not to notify Client B of a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C regarding similar services
The BER's finding that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report the pending complaint to Client B, noting that a complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law
In finding that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
a complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or a conclusion of law
Engineer A BER 97-11 Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
{'license_status': 'Professional Engineer', 'complaint_status': 'Pending ethics complaint from Client C', 'disclosure_action': 'Did not disclose complaint to Client B', 'board_finding': 'Non-disclosure was ethical'}
Engineer A was rendering services to Client B on a manufacturing project when a state board ethics complaint was filed by Client C regarding similar prior services. Engineer A chose not to disclose the pending complaint to Client B. The Board found this was ethical because the complaint was a mere allegation, not an adjudicated finding, and engineers should not be compelled to disclose potentially damaging unproven allegations.
{'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Client B'}
{'type': 'subject_of_complaint_by', 'target': 'Client C'}
{'type': 'under_review_by', 'target': 'State Board of Professional Engineers'}
Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
during the rendering of services to Client B on a manufacturing project, the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
Engineer A did not believe it was necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action
it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
Engineer A BER 97-11 Pending Allegation Prudential Weighing
Engineer A received notification of an ethics complaint by Client C alleging incompetence on a similar project to the one being performed for Client B. The Board found non-disclosure ethical but noted the engineer should weigh factors and consider providing background information.
Pending Allegation Prudential Disclosure Weighing Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to actively weigh all relevant factors regarding the pending ethics complaint — including its nature, seriousness, and potential impact on Client B — and to take prudent action proportionate to those factors, which might have included providing Client B with appropriate background information.
'Instead, Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.'
Upon receipt of the ethics complaint notification, during active service to Client B
However, the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.'
Engineer A BER 97-11 Pending Complaint Non-Compelled Disclosure to Client B
Engineer A was rendering services to Client B on a manufacturing project when the state board contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed by Client C alleging incompetence on a similar project.
Non-Compelled Pending Allegation Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A was not automatically compelled to disclose to Client B the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C, because the complaint was a mere allegation and not an adjudicated finding, and because no engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging and possibly false allegations — though Engineer A was required to weigh all factors and take prudent action.
BER Case 97-11; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2, II.3
During the period of active service to Client B while the ethics complaint from Client C was pending
Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
Engineer A Pending Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosure to Client B
From the time the ethics complaint was filed by Client C through Client B's discovery of the complaint via a third party
the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
Pending Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosure State
Engineer A's active client relationship with Client B while subject to pending ethics complaint from Client C
Client B learned of the complaint through another party and confronted Engineer A
Client B learned of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and told Engineer A that he was upset by the allegations
State board contacted Engineer A regarding ethics complaint filed by Client C; Engineer A continued serving Client B without disclosure
Engineer F BER 03-6 Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Calibration
The Board distinguished Engineer F's situation from BER 97-11 by identifying the contractor license revocation as an adjudicated finding rather than a mere allegation, triggering a compelled disclosure obligation.
Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Distinction Constraint
The disclosure obligation triggered for Engineer F was calibrated by the fact that his contractor's license revocation was an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — distinguishable from the pending complaint in BER 97-11 — establishing that the allegation/adjudication distinction is the operative constraint determining whether disclosure is compelled.
BER Case 03-6 contrasted with BER Case 97-11; NSPE Code of Ethics
the Board referred to Case 97-11 but pointed out a critical distinction: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.' This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'
At the time of completing the engineering firm employment application
Engineer F BER 03-6 Contractor License Revocation Compelled Disclosure
Engineer F applied for a PE position and answered 'no' to a question about prior disciplinary history, despite having had his contractor's license revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his license number.
Adjudicated Wrongdoing Employment Application Compelled Disclosure Constraint
Engineer F was ethically required to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license on the engineering firm employment application, because the revocation constituted an actual adjudication of wrongdoing — not a mere allegation — and the narrow wording of the application question did not excuse omission of a materially relevant adjudicated finding.
BER Case 03-6; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2, II.3
Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.' This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'
In finding that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license
On the engineering firm employment application, a question asked whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application.
Engineer F BER 03-6 Contractor License Revocation Non-Disclosure
Engineer F, a PE and former fire sprinkler contracting firm owner, answered 'no' on an engineering firm employment application when asked about disciplinary history or license revocation, despite having had his contractor's license revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use the contractor license number on another project.
Adjudicated Professional Misconduct Employment Application Disclosure Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to disclose on the engineering firm employment application the revocation of his contractor's license, because that revocation constituted an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — not a mere allegation — and the employment application asked about prior disciplinary history in professional practice.
At the time of completing the employment application
In finding that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license, the Board referred to Case 97-11 but pointed out a critical distinction: Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of 'actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.' This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.'
Engineer F BER 03-6 Non-Engineering License Disciplinary History Non-Disclosure
Engineer F's contractor's license — not his engineering license — was revoked after he allowed an unlicensed individual unrelated to his firm to use the contractor license number on another project. The employment application asked broadly about disciplinary history and license revocations.
Non-Engineering License Disciplinary History Employment Disclosure Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license on the engineering firm employment application, recognizing that the disclosure obligation extended beyond his engineering license to include the contractor's license held in connection with his fire sprinkler contracting practice.
while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
In finding that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license...
Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Adjudicated Wrongdoing
From the time Engineer F completed the employment application through the Board's finding
Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project
Adjudicated Wrongdoing Disclosure Obligation State
Engineer F's obligation to disclose contractor license revocation on engineering firm employment application
Board's determination that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to disclose the revocation
Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license
This was not 'a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing'
Engineer F's contractor license was revoked due to an actual adjudicated violation; Engineer F answered 'no' to the question about disciplinary history on the employment application
Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer
{'license_status': 'Professional Engineer', 'contractor_license': 'Revoked', 'pe_license': 'Not revoked or suspended', 'prior_role': 'Owner of fire sprinkler contracting firm', 'disclosure_action': "Answered 'no' to disciplinary question on employment application"}
Engineer F, a PE and former fire sprinkler contracting firm owner, answered 'no' on an engineering firm employment application when asked about disciplinary actions against his professional engineering license, omitting that his contractor's license had been revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number. The Board found this omission was an ethical violation because it involved an actual adjudicated wrongdoing, not a mere allegation.
{'type': 'applicant_to', 'target': 'Engineering Firm Hiring Authority'}
Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer
Engineer F is a professional engineer and applies for a professional engineering position with an engineering firm
Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application
Engineer F was the owner of a fire sprinkler contracting firm, which was required to have a contractor's license
Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number
Engineer F Non-Engineering License Disclosure Scope Failure
Non-Engineering License Revocation Employment Disclosure Scope Capability
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his contractor's license revocation fell within the scope of the employment application's disciplinary disclosure question, resulting in an impermissible negative response
Engineer F's completion of an engineering firm employment application that asked about prior disciplinary history
Engineer F answered 'no' to the disciplinary history question despite having had his contractor's license revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his license number, which the BER found constituted an ethical obligation to disclose
Engineer Intern A 90-Day Licensure Condition Temporal Constraint
The 90-day licensure condition was the foundational temporal constraint structuring the entire employment relationship; its defeat by the board-imposed re-examination bar created the ethical crisis requiring disclosure and remediation
The employment offer imposed a hard temporal constraint requiring Engineer Intern A to obtain PE licensure within 90 days of hire — a deadline that became impossible to satisfy once the third exam failure triggered the State X board's re-examination eligibility bar.
XYZ Consultants employment offer terms; State X Licensing Board Rules
90 days from date of hire at XYZ Consultants
Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
Engineer Intern A Allegation vs Adjudication Threshold Assessment
Engineer Intern A needed the capability to distinguish between his prior PE exam failures (not adjudicated misconduct) and the kind of adjudicated wrongdoing that would compel disclosure, in order to correctly assess his disclosure obligations
Engineer Intern A's pre-employment non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures to XYZ Consultants
The BER's analysis that Engineer Intern A's situation was more analogous to Case 97-11 (allegation, no compelled disclosure) than Case 03-6 (adjudicated revocation, disclosure required)
Engineer Intern A Board Re-Examination Bar Full Scope Disclosure
The board-imposed re-examination bar materially extended the licensure timeline beyond the 90-day condition, making it impossible for Engineer Intern A to satisfy the employment condition within the originally contemplated period
Board-Imposed Re-Examination Bar Employer Notification Constraint
Engineer Intern A was constrained to disclose not only the third exam failure but also the complete regulatory consequence — that State X required additional experience and new references before he could sit for the exam again — so that XYZ Consultants could assess the true impact on the 90-day licensure condition.
State X Licensing Board Rules; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3
At the time of disclosing the third exam failure result
Engineer Intern A Board Restriction Complete Disclosure to Supervisor
Following his third PE exam failure, Engineer Intern A disclosed both the failure and the board-imposed additional requirements to his supervisor at XYZ Consultants.
Board-Imposed Licensure Restriction Complete Disclosure Obligation
Engineer Intern A was obligated to disclose to his supervisor not only the fact of his third exam failure but also the full scope of the State X licensing board's additional requirements — including the need for additional experience and new references — so that XYZ Consultants could assess the realistic timeline for licensure.
At the time of post-hire disclosure, one month after starting work
A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
Engineer Intern A Career-Phase Ethics Applicability
BER Case 20-1: Engineer Intern A applied for and accepted a position at XYZ Consultants conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days, without disclosing two prior PE exam failures.
Career-Phase Ethics Universal Applicability Constraint
Engineer Intern A's pre-employment conduct and disclosure decisions are subject to full professional ethics review notwithstanding his intern (unlicensed) status, because engineering ethics apply from the intern phase onward.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review — BER Case 20-1 Discussion; NSPE Code of Ethics
From the point of engineering school enrollment through all phases of professional practice
Thus, the ethics of an engineer's employment lie squarely within the Board's purview
Engineer Intern A Employer Licensure Expectation Defeated
From Engineer Intern A's third PE exam failure through the Board's analysis; ongoing
XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam
Employer Licensure Expectation Defeated State
XYZ Consultants' foundational hiring assumption that Engineer Intern A would achieve PE licensure within 90 days
Not terminated within the case; ongoing at time of Board review
Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement
the consequences of losing employment were significantly amplified
Engineer Intern A's failure to pass the PE exam on the third attempt, defeating XYZ Consultants' 90-day licensure condition
Engineer Intern A Faithful Agent Post-Hire Disclosure Constraint
The faithful agent duty operates as a continuous constraint on Engineer Intern A's obligation to keep his employer informed of material risks to the employment condition, not merely a one-time disclosure obligation
Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Prompt Disclosure Constraint
As a faithful agent of XYZ Consultants, Engineer Intern A was constrained to advise his employer of the risk that the PE licensure condition could not be met within 90 days — both at the point of accepting the offer (given two prior failures) and immediately upon learning of the third failure and board restriction.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section IV.1 (faithful agent duty)
From offer acceptance through post-hire disclosure of third failure
Engineer Intern A Faithful Agent Post-Hire Risk Notification
Engineer Intern A, as an employee of XYZ Consultants, disclosed his third exam failure and the board's additional requirements to his supervisor, fulfilling his faithful agent duty to keep his employer informed of material risks to project and staffing commitments.
As an employee of XYZ Consultants, Engineer Intern A bore a faithful agent obligation to advise his employer of the risk that the PE licensure condition of his employment could not be satisfied within the 90-day period, including disclosing the board-imposed additional requirements that would further delay licensure.
Upon receipt of exam results, one month after starting work
Engineer Intern A Licensure Condition Acceptance Honest Representation
Engineer Intern A accepted a position conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days without disclosing that he had already failed the PE exam twice, making his representation of being 'on track' for licensure potentially misleading.
Licensure Condition Employment Acceptance Honest Representation Obligation
Engineer Intern A was obligated to honestly represent his realistic prospects of obtaining PE licensure within 90 days when accepting the position from XYZ Consultants, including disclosing that this would be his third attempt and that prior failures had already occurred.
Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
At the time of offer acceptance from XYZ Consultants
Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
Engineer Intern A Licensure Condition Acceptance Honest Representation Instance
Engineer Intern A accepted a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days while having already failed the exam twice; his representation of intent to take the exam 'in the coming weeks' without disclosing the prior failure history created a materially optimistic impression of his licensure prospects
Licensure Condition Acceptance Honest Representation Constraint
Engineer Intern A was constrained to honestly represent his realistic prospects of obtaining PE licensure within 90 days when accepting the XYZ Consultants offer — given his two prior failures, his upcoming third attempt, and the risk that a third failure would trigger a board-imposed re-examination bar — prohibiting acceptance under a materially optimistic representation of licensure prospects.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; BER Case 20-1
At his interview, Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.
At the time of accepting the employment offer from XYZ Consultants
Engineer Intern A Licensure Condition Realistic Prospect Self-Assessment
Licensure Condition Realistic Prospect Self-Assessment Capability
Engineer Intern A needed the capability to honestly assess his realistic probability of obtaining PE licensure within 90 days given his prior exam failure history before accepting the position
Engineer Intern A accepted employment conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days despite having previously failed the exam multiple times
Engineer Intern A accepted the position without disclosing prior failures, and subsequently failed his third attempt with board-imposed restrictions preventing timely re-examination
his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again
Engineer Intern A Material Omission Privacy Balance Assessment
The Board applied a materiality analysis to Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure, weighing his privacy right against the obligation to avoid material omissions, ultimately finding the omission did not rise to an ethics violation given the employer's knowledge of his unlicensed status.
Material Omission Privacy Balance Disclosure Obligation
Engineer Intern A was obligated to assess whether his privacy interest in non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures was overridden by the materiality of that information to XYZ Consultants' decision-making context, balancing his personal right to privacy against his obligation to be objective and truthful and to avoid omitting material facts.
The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact.'
During pre-employment representations to XYZ Consultants
Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern
{'education': 'BS in Engineering, MS in Management', 'experience': 'Five years', 'license_status': 'Engineer Intern (State Y), not yet PE licensed', 'exam_history': 'Three failed PE exam attempts', 'state_of_application': 'State X', 'state_of_current_license': 'State Y', 'board_restriction': 'State X licensing board requires additional experience and new references after third failure before re-examination'}
Engineer Intern A applied for and accepted a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, disclosed his unlicensed status during the interview but did not volunteer his prior two failed PE exam attempts; after starting work, disclosed a third failed attempt and the resulting state board restrictions on re-examination.
{'type': 'employee_of', 'target': 'XYZ Consultants'}
{'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'XYZ Consultants Supervisor'}
Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y with a BS in engineering, an MS in management, and five years of experience
Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam
Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks
the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure
Engineer Intern A PE Exam Failure Materiality Self-Assessment
Engineer Intern A failed to assess or act on the materiality of his prior exam failures in the context of a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, instead representing only that he intended to take the exam 'in the coming weeks.'
PE Exam Failure Disclosure Materiality Assessment Obligation
Engineer Intern A was obligated to assess whether his prior PE exam failures constituted material information given XYZ Consultants' explicit 90-day licensure requirement, and upon recognizing their materiality, to disclose them proactively during the interview.
During the interview with XYZ Consultants
Engineer Intern A PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure
From the time of hiring through the Board's analysis; persists until disclosure is made or employment is resolved
Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before
Engineer Intern A's employment relationship with XYZ Consultants
disclosure arguably was not ethically required
Engineer Intern A's decision not to disclose two prior PE exam failures when accepting employment with XYZ Consultants conditioned on achieving licensure within 90 days
Engineer Intern A PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Assessment
Engineer Intern A applied for a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, disclosed his unlicensed status but did not volunteer two prior exam failures. The Board assessed whether the omission was material given the employer's known context.
Engineer Intern A was obligated to assess whether his two prior PE exam failures constituted a material fact given XYZ Consultants' known decision-making context — specifically the 90-day licensure condition — and the Board found that while disclosure would have been prudent, the omission did not rise to an ethics violation because XYZ Consultants offered employment knowing he had not yet passed the exam.
The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11. That is, it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required.
During pre-employment interview and application process
XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam.
Engineer Intern A Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Disclosure
Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Prompt Disclosure Capability
Engineer Intern A needed the capability to promptly and completely disclose to XYZ Consultants that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that the State X licensing board had imposed restrictions on his re-examination eligibility, including the full scope of those restrictions
Engineer Intern A's post-hire disclosure obligations following his third PE exam failure and board-imposed re-examination restrictions
The obligation identified for Engineer Intern A to notify XYZ Consultants promptly upon learning of his third failure and board-imposed restrictions, and to disclose the full scope of those restrictions rather than minimizing them
failure to disclose does come with a downside
Engineer Intern A Post-Hire Third Failure Disclosure
Engineer Intern A needed the capability to promptly and completely disclose his third PE exam failure and the full scope of the State X board-imposed re-examination restrictions to XYZ Consultants
A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A disclosed his third exam failure and the board's additional requirements for re-examination eligibility
Engineer Intern A disclosed the third failure and board restrictions to his supervisor approximately one month after starting work, though the completeness and timeliness of the disclosure relative to when results were released is relevant
Engineer Intern A Post-Hire Third Failure Timely Notification
One month after starting work, Engineer Intern A received PE exam results showing a third failure and learned of board-imposed additional requirements. He disclosed this to his supervisor upon learning of the results.
Post-Hire Licensure Impediment Timely Notification Obligation
Engineer Intern A was obligated to notify XYZ Consultants promptly upon learning that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that the State X licensing board had imposed additional requirements before he could re-sit the examination.
Upon receipt of PE exam results, approximately one month after starting work
Engineer Intern A Post-Third-Failure Board Bar Prompt Disclosure Obligation
Engineer Intern A's third PE exam failure triggered a State X licensing board rule requiring additional experience hours and new professional references before re-examination eligibility, materially extending his licensure timeline beyond the 90-day condition of his employment.
Upon learning that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that the State X licensing board imposed additional prerequisites before re-examination eligibility, Engineer Intern A was constrained to promptly and completely disclose both the failure and the full scope of the regulatory bar to XYZ Consultants, not merely the fact of the most recent failure.
BER Case 20-1; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2, II.3, III.2
failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm
Immediately upon learning of the third exam failure and the board-imposed re-examination bar
privacy considerations are not the whole story. The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact.'
Engineer Intern A Post-Third-Failure Prompt Disclosure Constraint Instance
Engineer Intern A disclosed the third failure approximately one month after starting work; the disclosure included the board restriction, but the timing and completeness of disclosure relative to when results were received is ethically significant
Engineer Intern A was constrained to promptly and completely disclose to XYZ Consultants both the fact of his third PE exam failure and the full scope of the State X board-imposed re-examination restriction upon learning of the results, without delay or minimization.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3 (honest representation); faithful agent duty
Upon receipt of third PE exam results, approximately one month after hire
Engineer Intern A Pre-Hire PE Failure Non-Disclosure
From the time of the interview through the post-hire disclosure of the third failure result
Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask
Engineer Intern A's omission of two prior PE exam failures during the XYZ Consultants interview
Engineer Intern A disclosed to his supervisor one month after starting work that his third attempt had been unsuccessful, implicitly revealing the prior failure history
Engineer Intern A attended the interview and stated an intention to take the PE exam without disclosing two prior failed attempts
Engineer Intern A Pre-Hire PE Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Assessment
Engineer Intern A applied for a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, having failed the PE exam twice, without disclosing those failures during the interview.
PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Threshold Constraint
Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures during the XYZ Consultants interview did not constitute an ethical violation because XYZ Consultants offered the position with full knowledge that he had not yet passed the PE exam, and the omitted failure history was not outcome-determinative given what the employer already knew — tipping toward the BER 97-11 scenario rather than the BER 03-6 scenario.
BER Case 20-1; BER Case 97-11; NSPE Code of Ethics
Pre-employment interview and hiring process at XYZ Consultants
The facts do not suggest any deception on behalf of Engineer Intern A, but rather an appropriate, planned, confident path toward satisfying the job requirement
it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required.
Engineer Intern A Pre-Interview PE Exam Attempt Non-Disclosure
Engineer Intern A had made multiple prior attempts to pass the PE exam before the interview with XYZ Consultants, but did not disclose this history while representing an intention to take the exam 'in the coming weeks.'
Pre-Employment PE Exam Attempt History Disclosure Obligation
Engineer Intern A was obligated to disclose his prior PE examination failures to XYZ Consultants during the interview, given that the advertised position required PE licensure within 90 days and his prior failures were material to the employer's assessment of whether he could satisfy that condition.
At the time of the interview with XYZ Consultants
Engineer Intern A Pre-Interview PE Failure Non-Disclosure Permissibility
Engineer Intern A had failed the PE exam twice before the interview but did not disclose this; XYZ Consultants did not ask; the employer knew he was unlicensed and offered the position with a 90-day licensure condition
Engineer Intern A was not automatically obligated to volunteer his two prior PE exam failures during the XYZ Consultants interview because XYZ Consultants already knew he was unlicensed and did not specifically inquire about prior attempts — the materiality threshold for mandatory disclosure was not met under BER Case 20-1 analysis.
At the time of the XYZ Consultants interview, prior to offer acceptance
Engineer Intern A Privacy Right Material Omission Balance
Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures was assessed against the materiality standard given XYZ Consultants' full knowledge of his unlicensed status.
Engineer Intern A's privacy interest in non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures was bounded by the prohibition against omitting material facts — requiring assessment of whether the two prior failures crossed the threshold from legitimately private to materially outcome-determinative given XYZ Consultants' existing knowledge that he was not yet licensed.
BER Case 20-1; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2, II.3
Engineer Intern A Privacy vs Material Omission Balancing
Engineer Intern A needed the capability to balance his privacy interest in non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures against his professional obligation to avoid material omissions, correctly determining that the balance tipped toward permissible non-disclosure given XYZ Consultants' knowledge that he had not yet passed the PE exam
Engineer Intern A's decision not to disclose two prior PE exam failures during the interview with XYZ Consultants
The BER's finding that non-disclosure was arguably not ethically required because XYZ Consultants offered the position knowing Engineer Intern A had not yet passed the PE exam, implicitly accepting his current licensure status
Engineer Intern A Privacy vs Material Omission Tension
From hiring through Board's ethical analysis
The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact'
Engineer Intern A's ethical position regarding non-disclosure of prior exam failures
Board's determination that disclosure was prudent but not ethically required in this case
the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11
the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful'
Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures to XYZ Consultants at time of hire
Engineer Intern A Prudent Disclosure Foregone Vulnerability
From the point of Engineer Intern A's third exam failure through the Board's analysis; ongoing
Prudent Disclosure Foregone Employment Vulnerability State
Engineer Intern A's professional and relational position with XYZ Consultants following third PE exam failure
Not terminated within the case; ongoing vulnerability at time of Board review
Had Engineer Intern A disclosed two previous failures to pass the exam, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment in the first place. But if XYZ Consultants chose to offer employment with full knowledge of previous past exam failures, Engineer Intern A would likely be in a much stronger position, both professionally and relationally
Engineer Intern A's failure to pass the PE exam on the third attempt, materializing the risk that the non-disclosed prior failures had created
Engineer Intern A Prudential Disclosure Relational Self-Protection
Engineer Intern A did not disclose prior exam failures before accepting employment. After failing a third time and facing board-imposed restrictions, he was in a 'very shaky position' with the firm. The Board noted that voluntary disclosure would have placed him in a stronger position.
Prudential Pre-Employment Disclosure Relational Self-Protection Obligation
Engineer Intern A, while not ethically required to disclose his two prior PE exam failures, would have been in a significantly stronger professional and relational position with XYZ Consultants had he voluntarily disclosed those failures before accepting employment, because disclosure would have allowed the employer to make an informed offer and would have protected Engineer Intern A from the amplified consequences of non-disclosure when the licensure condition was not met.
However, failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
During pre-employment interview and at the time of accepting the employment offer
Had Engineer Intern A disclosed two previous failures to pass the exam, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment in the first place. But if XYZ Consultants chose to offer employment with full knowledge of previous past exam failures, Engineer Intern A would likely be in a much stronger position, both professionally and relationally, with the employer at a time when the consequences of losing employment were significantly amplified.
Engineer Intern A Prudential Non-Disclosure Relational Vulnerability
Engineer Intern A's permissible non-disclosure of prior exam failures left him professionally and relationally exposed when his third failure triggered a board-imposed re-examination bar, amplifying the consequences of potential employment termination.
Prudential Pre-Employment Disclosure Relational Risk Constraint
Although Engineer Intern A was not ethically required to disclose his two prior PE exam failures, his choice not to disclose created a foreseeable relational vulnerability — placing him in a significantly weaker professional and relational position with XYZ Consultants when his third failure and board-imposed re-examination bar materialized, compared to the position he would have occupied had XYZ Consultants hired him with full knowledge of his exam history.
failure to disclose does come with a downside. The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
From the point of hire through the post-third-failure disclosure to XYZ Consultants
Engineer Intern A Prudential Relational Consequence Foresight Deficit
Prudential Pre-Disclosure Relational Consequence Foresight Capability
Engineer Intern A lacked or failed to exercise the capability to foresee that voluntary disclosure of prior exam failures — if accepted by XYZ Consultants — would have placed him in a significantly stronger professional and relational position when his third exam attempt subsequently failed, compared to the weakened position resulting from non-disclosure followed by failure
Engineer Intern A's pre-employment decision not to disclose two prior PE exam failures, which left him in a weakened position when his third attempt also failed
The BER's observation that Engineer Intern A was in a 'very shaky position' with the firm following his third failure, and that disclosure accepted by the employer would have left him 'in a much stronger position, both professionally and relationally'
The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
Engineer Intern A Repeated Exam Failure Regulatory Bar
From the third exam failure through the Board's analysis; ongoing
Engineer Intern A failed the PE exam for the third time and was informed by the state board that he would need to obtain additional experience, new references, and take additional coursework before being allowed to sit for the exam again
Repeated Exam Failure Regulatory Bar State
Engineer Intern A's path to PE licensure following three exam failures
Engineer Intern A's failure of the PE exam for the third time, triggering state board prerequisites for re-examination
Engineer Intern A Third Failure Regulatory Bar
From the release of the third PE exam failure results onward, persisting until Engineer Intern A satisfies the board's additional prerequisites
Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again
Engineer Intern A's post-third-failure status under State X licensing board rules requiring additional experience and references before re-examination
Satisfaction of board-imposed additional experience and reference requirements, enabling re-examination eligibility
Engineer Intern A's third unsuccessful attempt at the PE exam, triggering State X licensing board's additional prerequisites for re-examination eligibility
Engineer Intern A Unlicensed in PE-Required Role
From the start of employment through resolution of the licensure barrier
Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y
Engineer Intern A's status as an unlicensed intern now employed in a role that required PE licensure within 90 days, facing an extended and uncertain path to licensure
Engineer Intern A obtains PE licensure or employment arrangement is modified
a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire
Engineer Intern A began employment at XYZ Consultants in a role requiring PE licensure within 90 days while not yet licensed
Engineer Intern A starts work before 90-day PE licensure deadline
Engineer Intern A starts work before third PE exam result disclosure to supervisor
Engineer Intern A's planned third PE exam attempt overlaps 90-day PE licensure window post-hire
Engineer Intern A's relocation to State X after job interview with XYZ Consultants
Engineer Intern A's relocation to State X meets Engineer Intern A starts work
Engineer Intern A's statement of intent to take PE exam during job interview with XYZ Consultants
Engineer Intern A's two prior PE exam failures before job interview with XYZ Consultants
with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire
XYZ Consultants in setting hiring requirements; Engineer Intern A in understanding licensure obligations
Defines the legal requirement for PE licensure in State X and establishes the legal framework within which XYZ Consultants' 90-day licensure requirement and Engineer Intern A's obligations must be understood.
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked By Engineer Intern A Post-Hire
XYZ Consultants employment relationship and project staffing plans dependent on Engineer Intern A's PE licensure
As an employee of XYZ Consultants, Engineer Intern A bore a faithful agent obligation to advise his employer of the risk that the PE licensure condition of his employment could not be met within the stated 90-day timeline — a risk that materialized when his third exam attempt failed and the licensing board imposed additional requirements
The faithful agent relationship between an employee and employer requires the employee to keep the employer informed of material risks to the conditions under which the employment was established; Engineer Intern A's disclosure of the third failure and the licensing board's additional requirements fulfilled this obligation at the post-hire stage
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
The faithful agent notification obligation was ultimately fulfilled through the post-hire disclosure, but the principle also supports the argument that the obligation arose earlier — at the pre-employment stage — when Engineer Intern A knew he was about to sit for a third attempt on an exam he had already failed twice
Formative Mentorship Integrity Invoked By XYZ Consultants Supervisor
XYZ Consultants supervisor's response to Engineer Intern A's post-hire disclosure of exam failure
Post-Hire Material Qualification Change Notification Obligation
The supervisor at XYZ Consultants, upon learning of Engineer Intern A's third exam failure and the licensing board's additional requirements, faces a formative mentorship moment: how the supervisor responds — whether with punitive action, constructive guidance, or collaborative problem-solving — will shape Engineer Intern A's understanding of professional integrity and the consequences of omission in professional representations
The supervisor's response to the disclosure is not merely a personnel management decision but a formative professional ethics lesson; the supervisor has an obligation to address both the immediate staffing problem and the underlying ethical issue of the pre-employment omission in a manner that promotes Engineer Intern A's professional development
XYZ Consultants Supervisor Engineering Firm PE Licensing Supervisor
Formative Professional Mentorship Integrity Obligation
The formative mentorship principle supports a response that acknowledges the ethical significance of the pre-employment omission while also recognizing that Engineer Intern A's prompt post-hire disclosure demonstrated good faith
Hired Without Asking About Exam History (Action 3) → State X Additional Requirements Triggered (Event 5)
Honesty In Professional Representations Invoked By Engineer Intern A Pre-Employment
XYZ Consultants interview and hiring process
Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
By presenting himself as intending to take the PE exam 'in the coming weeks' without disclosing that this would be his third attempt and that two prior failures had already occurred, Engineer Intern A created an impression of being straightforwardly 'on track' for licensure that was materially incomplete and potentially misleading
Honesty in professional representations extends beyond avoiding outright false statements to avoiding the creation of misleading impressions through selective disclosure; presenting oneself as about to take the PE exam without disclosing a history of two prior failures creates a misleadingly optimistic picture of one's licensure trajectory
The principle of honesty in professional representations supports finding that Engineer Intern A's partial disclosure was ethically deficient, even though he made no affirmatively false statement
Honesty Standard Applied to Engineer Intern A Pre-Employment Representations
Pre-employment representations to XYZ Consultants regarding PE licensure trajectory
Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
The Board assessed whether Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures violated the honesty standard for professional representations, finding that the facts did not suggest deception but rather a planned, confident path toward licensure — distinguishing the case from affirmative misrepresentation
The honesty standard for professional representations prohibits lying, falsifying, and misrepresenting qualifications, but does not automatically require volunteering all potentially relevant adverse history; the line is drawn at affirmative deception and material misrepresentation by omission
similar to Case 19-11, the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before.
The Board found no violation of the honesty standard because the facts showed a planned path toward qualification rather than deceptive concealment of a known disqualifying deficiency, paralleling the BER 19-1 finding for the autism non-disclosure
Most likely Engineer Intern A felt that passage of the PE exam on the third attempt was imminent
The facts do not suggest any deception on behalf of Engineer Intern A, but rather an appropriate, planned, confident path toward satisfying the job requirement, namely, PE licensure within 90 days of the date of hire
similar to Case 19-11, the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before
Licensure Integrity Invoked In XYZ Consultants Hiring Context
XYZ Consultants staffing and supervision obligations for engineering work performed by Engineer Intern A
The 90-day PE licensure requirement in XYZ Consultants' job advertisement reflects the broader principle that engineering positions requiring PE oversight must be filled by licensed engineers or by candidates genuinely on track for licensure, so that the public protection function of the licensure system is not undermined by indefinite deferral of the licensure condition
The licensure integrity principle undergirds the 90-day requirement and explains why the employer's reliance on Engineer Intern A being 'on track' was not merely a contractual expectation but an ethical one — the firm has an obligation to ensure that its engineering work is performed under appropriate PE oversight, which requires that the licensure condition be genuinely achievable
XYZ Consultants Engineering Firm PE Licensing Supervisor
Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
The licensure integrity principle supports both the employer's right to rely on the candidate's representations about licensure trajectory and the candidate's obligation to make those representations complete and accurate
National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES)
NCEES Model Rules of Professional Conduct
State licensing boards in State X and State Y; Engineer Intern A subject to these rules
Provides the model framework for state licensing board rules governing professional conduct, including standards for honest representation of qualifications and licensure status that State X and State Y licensing boards may have adopted.
National Society of Professional Engineers
XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license
Engineer Intern A; XYZ Consultants; ethics reviewers
Primary normative authority governing Engineer Intern A's obligation to honestly represent his qualifications and PE exam history to XYZ Consultants during the hiring process; grounds duties of honesty and non-deception in professional dealings.
Objectivity and Truthfulness Obligation Invoked as Counterweight to Privacy
Omission of adverse professional history
Professional representations in employment and client-service contexts
Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
The Board invoked the engineer's obligation to be objective and truthful and to avoid statements omitting material facts as the counterweight to the privacy right, establishing that privacy does not license material misrepresentation by omission in professional representations
Objectivity and truthfulness obligations operate as a ceiling on the privacy right: the engineer may withhold personal information but may not allow that withholding to create a materially false impression of their professional qualifications or standing
The Board treats objectivity and truthfulness as the limiting principle on privacy: privacy protects against compelled disclosure of non-material personal facts, but does not protect against the obligation to avoid material misrepresentation by omission
an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts
the right to privacy (i.e., nondisclosure) must be balanced by an engineer's corresponding obligation to be 'objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony' and to 'avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact'
Omission Materiality Analysis Applied to Engineer Intern A PE Exam Failures
Non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures to XYZ Consultants
The Board applied a materiality analysis to Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures, weighing whether those failures constituted a material fact whose omission undermined XYZ Consultants' ability to make an informed hiring decision, ultimately finding the case 'finely nuanced' but below the compelled-disclosure threshold
The materiality of the omitted exam failures is reduced by the fact that XYZ Consultants knowingly hired an unlicensed intern, that two of three licensing requirements (education and experience) were satisfactory, and that the facts suggest a planned path toward licensure rather than deceptive concealment of a disqualifying deficiency
The Board found the omission did not cross the materiality threshold for compelled disclosure, distinguishing the case from BER 03-6 (adjudicated wrongdoing) while acknowledging it was a closer call than BER 19-1 (personal medical condition)
The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11
of the three requirements for professional licensing (examination, education, and experience), Engineer Intern A's education and experience qualifications are quite acceptable
Omission Materiality Threshold Invoked In Engineer Intern A Interview
Pre-employment interview disclosure at XYZ Consultants
The ethical weight of Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose prior exam attempts depends on whether that information was material — i.e., whether it would have affected XYZ Consultants' hiring decision — given that the position explicitly required PE licensure within 90 days and the intern had already failed twice and was about to sit for a third attempt
Prior exam failure history is material to a hiring decision conditioned on PE licensure within 90 days because it directly bears on the probability that the candidate can meet the stated condition; the materiality threshold is therefore met, making the omission ethically significant rather than merely imprudent
Because the information was material — it would have altered the employer's assessment of whether the candidate was 'on track' — the omission crosses the materiality threshold and generates an ethical disclosure obligation even absent a direct inquiry
Omitted Prior Exam Failures at Interview
Omitted Prior Exam Failures at Interview (Action 2) → Hired Without Asking About Exam History (Action 3) → Job Offer Extended (Event 2)
Derived from NSPE Code of Ethics honesty provisions and qualification representation norms
PE Examination Attempt Disclosure Standard
Engineer Intern A during interview; XYZ Consultants in hiring decision
Addresses the specific ethical question of whether Engineer Intern A had an affirmative duty to disclose his two prior failed PE exam attempts to XYZ Consultants, given that the position required PE licensure within 90 days and the employer's decision was predicated on the assumption of imminent licensure.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived standard)
the facts indicate Engineer Intern A did not lie, falsify statements, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his hiring, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before
it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required
Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer Intern A's conduct during the hiring process
The normative standard under analysis in this case — governing whether Engineer Intern A had an ethical obligation to disclose two prior failed PE exam attempts to prospective employer XYZ Consultants; the Board concludes disclosure was prudent but not ethically required in this instance
Personal Privacy Right Invoked in BER 19-1 Autism Disclosure Analysis
Pre-employment disclosure decision regarding autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis
The Board held in BER 19-1 that Engineer A's non-disclosure of his autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis to a prospective employer was ethically permissible because the NSPE Code does not compel disclosure of personal medical conditions, and Engineer A retained a personal right to privacy
A personal medical condition, even one potentially relevant to an employer's preferences, falls within the engineer's protected personal privacy sphere and does not constitute a material professional qualification fact requiring disclosure under the NSPE Code
The Board resolved in favor of privacy, finding no deception, falsification, misrepresentation, or compromise of honesty standards — the engineer simply did not volunteer a personal fact he was not obligated to disclose
The Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure
The engineer did not lie, falsify statements, compromise the highest standards of honesty or integrity, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his obtaining employment, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had autism, more specifically, Asperger's Syndrome
Post-Hire Material Qualification Change Notification Invoked By Engineer Intern A
XYZ Consultants employment relationship and PE licensure timeline condition
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
One month after starting work, Engineer Intern A disclosed to his supervisor that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references before he could re-sit — a disclosure that was ethically required but came after the employment relationship had already commenced under false pretenses
Engineer Intern A's post-hire disclosure, while ethically required and to his credit, reveals that the employment was already underway before the employer learned of the material qualification gap; the principle requires that such disclosures be made promptly upon learning of the material change, which in this case occurred when exam results were released
Engineer Intern A fulfilled the post-hire notification obligation by disclosing the failure promptly upon learning of the results; the more significant ethical question concerns the pre-employment omission that preceded this disclosure
Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Invoked By Engineer Intern A
XYZ Consultants job application and interview process
Engineer Intern A, applying for a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, disclosed his current unlicensed status but did not volunteer that he had already failed the PE exam twice (and was about to sit for a third attempt), information that was directly material to the employer's assessment of whether he was 'on track' to meet the 90-day requirement
The case turns on whether Engineer Intern A's silence about prior exam failures constituted an ethically culpable omission. The principle requires that when a candidate knows that a position has an explicit licensure timeline and that their own exam history creates material uncertainty about meeting that timeline, the candidate bears an affirmative duty to disclose that history even absent a direct question — because the employer's reliance on the candidate being 'on track' is a foundational condition of the offer
The fact that XYZ Consultants did not ask mitigates but does not eliminate Engineer Intern A's disclosure obligation; the materiality of prior failures to a 90-day PE requirement is sufficiently clear that a reasonable candidate should have volunteered the information
Privacy-Objectivity Balance Invoked in Present Case Analysis
Non-disclosure of two prior PE exam failures during pre-employment process at XYZ Consultants
The Board acknowledged that Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure of prior PE exam failures implicates both a privacy right and the competing obligation to be objective and truthful and to avoid omitting material facts, requiring a balancing analysis rather than automatic resolution in favor of either privacy or disclosure
The privacy right does not operate as an absolute shield; it must be balanced against objectivity and truthfulness obligations, with the balance tipping based on whether the omitted fact constitutes a material misrepresentation in context
The ethical question becomes whether Engineer Intern A's failure to disclose could be considered fully 'objective and truthful' or 'omitting a material fact.' The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11.
The Board found the facts 'finely nuanced' but tipping toward the BER 97-11 (non-required disclosure) outcome rather than the BER 03-6 (required disclosure) outcome, because the exam failures were not an adjudicated wrongdoing and XYZ Consultants knowingly hired an unlicensed intern
privacy considerations are not the whole story
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional engineering norms
Engineer Intern A in assessing his readiness for the role; XYZ Consultants in evaluating fitness for the position
Provides normative grounding for the expectation that Engineer Intern A should practice within his demonstrated competence and be transparent about limitations — including the limitation that he has not yet passed the PE exam — when accepting a position contingent on licensure.
Prudential Disclosure Self-Protection Invoked for Engineer Intern A
Decision not to disclose two prior PE exam failures to XYZ Consultants during pre-employment process
The Board observed that although Engineer Intern A was not ethically required to disclose prior PE exam failures, his failure to do so placed him in a 'very shaky position' with the firm after a third failure, whereas proactive disclosure would have produced a stronger professional and relational standing with the employer
The prudential case for disclosure is strongest when the undisclosed fact is one that will inevitably surface if circumstances go adversely, and when the relational consequences of discovery-after-concealment are significantly more damaging than the relational consequences of proactive disclosure
Prudential Disclosure as Relational Self-Protection
The Board does not resolve this as an ethical tension but as a practical professional wisdom observation: the engineer who discloses proactively, even when not required, negotiates from a position of mutual knowledge and preserves relational trust that becomes critical when adverse outcomes materialize
Had Engineer Intern A disclosed two previous failures to pass the exam, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment in the first place
The 'prudent' part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement
if XYZ Consultants chose to offer employment with full knowledge of previous past exam failures, Engineer Intern A would likely be in a much stronger position, both professionally and relationally, with the employer at a time when the consequences of losing employment were significantly amplified
Professional engineering norms; NSPE Code of Ethics
Engineer Intern A in job application and interview; XYZ Consultants in evaluating candidate qualifications
Governs Engineer Intern A's obligation to accurately represent his qualifications, licensure status, and PE exam history when applying for a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days; addresses whether omission of prior exam failures constitutes misrepresentation.
Was it ethical for Engineer Intern A not to have mentioned at the interview his two previous failures at passing the PE exam if he was not asked that question by XYZ Consultants?
Given that XYZ Consultants made PE licensure within 90 days a condition of hire, did Engineer Intern A's silence about two prior failures constitute an implicit misrepresentation that he was realistically on track to satisfy that condition?
At what point before or during employment did Engineer Intern A's non-disclosure cross from a permissible omission into a breach of his faithful agent obligation to XYZ Consultants — specifically, was there an affirmative duty to disclose the prior failures once he accepted the offer and the 90-day licensure clock began running?
Does the Board's shared-responsibility framing — acknowledging XYZ Consultants' failure to ask about exam history — inappropriately dilute Engineer Intern A's individual ethical accountability, and should an engineer's honesty obligations be independent of whether the employer asks the right questions?
How does the analogical precedent from BER Case 03-6, in which Engineer F was found to have an obligation to disclose a contractor license revocation on an employment application, bear on whether Engineer Intern A's prior PE exam failures — a material qualification fact — should have been volunteered without being asked?
Does the Personal Privacy Right — as recognized in BER 19-1 regarding Engineer A's autism non-disclosure — conflict with the Objectivity and Truthfulness Obligation when the undisclosed information is not a medical condition but a directly job-relevant qualification history that materially affects an employer's hiring decision?
Does the Omission Materiality Threshold principle — which could excuse silence on facts not directly solicited — conflict with the Honesty Standard Applied to Pre-Employment Representations when the omitted facts (two prior PE exam failures) are precisely the facts that would have altered the employer's hiring decision?
Does the Employer Hiring Due Diligence principle — which places responsibility on XYZ Consultants to ask probing questions — conflict with the Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure principle — which places an affirmative honesty burden on Engineer Intern A — and if both principles apply simultaneously, how should their respective weights be calibrated?
Does the Prudential Disclosure Self-Protection principle — which counsels Engineer Intern A to volunteer information in his own long-term relational interest — conflict with the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation — which frames disclosure as a duty owed to the employer rather than a self-interested calculation — and does conflating these two rationales weaken the ethical force of the disclosure norm?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer Intern A fulfill his duty of honesty toward XYZ Consultants by remaining silent about two prior PE exam failures when the hiring condition explicitly required licensure within 90 days, regardless of whether the question was directly asked?
From a consequentialist standpoint, did Engineer Intern A's silence about his prior exam failures produce a net harm to XYZ Consultants, the profession, and himself that outweighed any short-term benefit of securing employment, given that the non-disclosure ultimately resulted in a materially undermined trust relationship and an unfillable licensure condition?
Applying virtue ethics, did Engineer Intern A demonstrate the professional integrity and practical wisdom expected of an engineer-in-training when he chose not to volunteer information about two prior exam failures that were directly material to a hiring condition he had accepted, even if that silence was technically permissible under a strict question-and-answer standard?
From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Code's prohibition on material misrepresentation by omission impose an affirmative duty on Engineer Intern A to disclose prior exam failures when those failures are directly relevant to a stated hiring condition, such that the absence of an explicit question from XYZ Consultants does not relieve him of that duty?
If Engineer Intern A had voluntarily disclosed his two prior PE exam failures at the interview, would XYZ Consultants have extended the job offer, and would that outcome have better served both parties' interests and the integrity of the profession compared to the trust breakdown that actually occurred?
What if XYZ Consultants had directly asked Engineer Intern A at the interview whether he had previously attempted the PE exam — would the Board's ethical analysis have shifted from 'imprudent but not unethical' to a finding of clear ethical violation, and what does that potential shift reveal about the adequacy of a question-dependent disclosure standard in professional engineering hiring?
If Engineer Intern A had disclosed his two prior failures at the interview but XYZ Consultants had hired him anyway with a modified or extended licensure timeline, would the subsequent third failure and the State X regulatory bar have constituted a different kind of ethical problem — one focused on post-hire faithful agent obligations rather than pre-hire omission — and how would the Board's analysis have changed accordingly?
What if Engineer Intern A had passed the PE exam on his third attempt after being hired — would his pre-hire non-disclosure of two prior failures have remained ethically imprudent, or would the successful outcome have retroactively neutralized the materiality of the omission, and what does this scenario reveal about whether the Board's 'imprudent but not unethical' standard is outcome-dependent in a way that undermines consistent ethical guidance?
State X Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
State Licensing Board Rules of Professional Conduct
Engineer Intern A subject to these rules; XYZ Consultants affected by the licensure timeline constraint
Establishes the regulatory consequence that after a third PE exam failure, State X requires additional experience and new references before a candidate may sit for the exam again — a material constraint on Engineer Intern A's ability to meet the 90-day licensure requirement.
State X Additional Requirements Triggered
State X Board Re-Examination Eligibility Regulatory Bar on Engineer Intern A
The board-imposed re-examination bar is the central regulatory constraint in this case — it transforms what might have been a recoverable exam failure into a structural impediment to the employment condition, and triggers the disclosure obligations analyzed throughout the case
State X licensing board rules imposed a hard regulatory constraint on Engineer Intern A's ability to re-sit the PE examination following his third failure, requiring him to accumulate additional experience and obtain new professional references before becoming eligible — making satisfaction of the 90-day licensure condition legally impossible.
Following the third PE exam failure, for an indeterminate period until additional experience and reference requirements are met
{'firm_type': 'Engineering consulting firm', 'state': 'State X', 'pe_requirement': 'PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days of hire', 'due_diligence_gap': 'Did not ask about prior PE exam attempts'}
XYZ Consultants advertised a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, interviewed Engineer Intern A, did not inquire about prior exam attempts, and offered the position with the expectation that the candidate was on track to obtain a PE license.
{'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer Intern A'}
{'type': 'hiring_party_for', 'target': 'Engineer Intern A PE Exam Disclosure Engineer Intern'}
The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4 years' experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire
XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority Licensure Due Diligence
Licensure Condition Hiring Due Diligence Capability
XYZ Consultants needed the capability to conduct reasonable due diligence during the hiring process by inquiring about Engineer Intern A's prior PE examination attempt history given the explicit 90-day licensure condition in the job advertisement
XYZ Consultants advertised a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days but did not inquire about the candidate's prior examination history during the interview
XYZ Consultants failed to ask about prior exam attempts during the interview, resulting in hiring a candidate who could not realistically satisfy the licensure condition within the required timeframe
XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority Licensure Due Diligence Deficit
XYZ Consultants failed to exercise the capability to conduct reasonable pre-hire due diligence by inquiring about Engineer Intern A's prior examination attempt history, despite advertising a position with an explicit 90-day PE licensure condition
XYZ Consultants' hiring process for a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days
The BER's implicit recognition that XYZ Consultants offered the position knowing Engineer Intern A had not yet passed the PE exam without inquiring further about his examination history
XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority Licensure Due Diligence Inquiry
XYZ Consultants advertised a position requiring PE licensure within 90 days, interviewed Engineer Intern A who disclosed he was not yet licensed, but did not inquire about prior exam attempts before extending an offer.
Employer Licensure Condition Due Diligence Inquiry Obligation
XYZ Consultants was obligated to conduct reasonable due diligence during the hiring process by inquiring about Engineer Intern A's prior PE examination attempts, given that the advertised position explicitly required PE licensure within 90 days of hire.
XYZ Consultants Licensure Condition Hiring Due Diligence Failure
XYZ Consultants did not ask about prior exam attempts despite the 90-day licensure condition being a material hiring requirement; this procedural gap contributed to the employer's uninformed reliance on Engineer Intern A's unverified licensure prospects
Employer Licensure Condition Hiring Due Diligence Constraint
XYZ Consultants was constrained to conduct reasonable due diligence by inquiring about Engineer Intern A's prior PE exam attempt history before extending a licensure-conditioned offer, given that the advertised position explicitly required PE licensure within 90 days.
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional hiring standards
During the interview and hiring process, prior to offer extension
XYZ Consultants Licensure Expectation Defeated
From the moment Engineer Intern A disclosed the third failure result to his supervisor, persisting until the employment arrangement is renegotiated or resolved
XYZ Consultants' foundational hiring expectation that Engineer Intern A was on track to obtain a PE license within 90 days, now materially undermined
Renegotiation of employment terms, Engineer Intern A obtaining licensure, or termination of employment
Engineer Intern A's disclosure one month post-hire that his third PE exam attempt failed and that the licensing board requires additional prerequisites before re-examination
{'firm': 'XYZ Consultants', 'state': 'State X', 'disclosure_received': 'Third PE exam failure and state board re-examination restrictions'}
The supervisor at XYZ Consultants received Engineer Intern A's post-hire disclosure that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that state board restrictions now applied to his re-examination eligibility, triggering obligations to assess continued employment and compliance.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'XYZ Consultants'}
{'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Engineer Intern A'}
Engineering Firm PE Licensing Supervisor
Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful
XYZ Consultants Supervisor Mentorship Response Obligation
Formative Mentorship Ethical Modeling Capability
The supervising engineer at XYZ Consultants needed the capability to respond to Engineer Intern A's disclosure of his third PE exam failure and board-imposed restrictions by providing constructive mentorship and modeling ethical professional conduct rather than responding punitively
XYZ Consultants supervisor's response to Engineer Intern A's disclosure of third PE exam failure and board-imposed re-examination restrictions
The obligation identified for the supervising engineer to respond constructively by providing mentorship, identifying pathways to eventual licensure, and advising on employment implications
the ethics of an engineer's employment lie squarely within the Board's purview, and the Board has considered such matters in past cases
XYZ Consultants Supervisor Mentorship Response to Third Failure
The supervisor at XYZ Consultants received Engineer Intern A's disclosure that his third PE exam attempt had failed and that the State X licensing board had imposed additional requirements before he could re-sit the exam.
XYZ Consultants Supervisor (Engineering Firm PE Licensing Supervisor)
Supervisory Response to Licensure Condition Failure Mentorship Obligation
The supervising engineer at XYZ Consultants was obligated to respond to Engineer Intern A's disclosure of his third PE exam failure and board-imposed restrictions in a manner that balanced the firm's business interests with honest communication about employment consequences and appropriate professional guidance.
Upon receiving Engineer Intern A's post-hire disclosure, approximately one month after hire
contractor's license revocation of Engineer F (BER 03-6) before Engineer F's application to engineering firm
ethics complaint filed by Client C against Engineer A (BER 97-11) during Engineer A rendering services to Client B
job interview with XYZ Consultants before job offer from XYZ Consultants
job offer from XYZ Consultants before Engineer Intern A starts work
third PE exam result disclosure to supervisor during 90-day PE licensure window
third PE exam sitting before third PE exam result disclosure to supervisor