Additional Testing Rejected (Event 2) → Resign From Company X (Action 3) → Engineer A Departs Company (Event 3)
BER 08-10 Infant Respirator Confirmed Safety Concern Without Imminent Incident
From Engineer A's identification of the relief valve placement issue through the Board's analysis of the case
an infant could potentially experience dangerously high pressure levels—although no incidents had been reported
Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
MedTech infant respirator relief valve placement and Engineer A's escalation within MedTech
Not resolved within the case facts — hundreds of respirators were on market with issue unaddressed
Hundreds of new respirators were then on the market, and Engineer A was concerned about the increasing likelihood of a tragic event
a month later Engineer A learned from Engineer B that nothing had been done to correct the issue
Engineer A determined that a relief valve may have been incorrectly placed such that infants could experience dangerously high pressure levels; manager took no action for one month despite notification
BER 08-10 Internal Escalation Pathway Assessment for MedTech Respirator
From Engineer A's second approach to the manager through the Board's determination that internal mechanisms should have been explored first
it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken
Internal Escalation Pathway Exhaustion Assessment State
Engineer A's escalation options within MedTech after manager non-response
Board determination that Engineer A should have explored internal mechanisms before threatening external reporting
Engineer A should have explored internal mechanisms within MedTech to seek further recourse regarding this issue
Engineer A should have sought to determine what internal steps were being taken to address the concerns
only if such efforts did not produce satisfactory results should Engineer A consider exploring external avenues for action
Manager indicated the matter was 'still being looked into' after one month of inaction, prompting Engineer A to threaten external reporting
BER 76-4 Client-Suppressed Environmental Findings at Public Hearing
From XYZ Corporation's termination of Engineer Doe's contract through the public hearing at which XYZ presented contradictory data
the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
Client-Suppressed Findings at Public Hearing State
Engineer Doe's relationship with XYZ Corporation and the State Pollution Control Authority
Engineer Doe's ethical obligation to report findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing
Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing
Engineer Doe learned that the authority had called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation had presented data to support its view that the present discharge met minimum standards
XYZ Corporation terminated Engineer Doe's contract, instructed him not to render a written report, and then presented data to the authority contradicting his findings
BER 76-4 Client Conflict Arises (Event 6) → Report Findings to Regulatory Authority (Action 6 - BER 76-4)
BER 76-4 Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report
From XYZ Corporation's instruction not to render a written report through Engineer Doe's learning of the public hearing
instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation
Confidentiality Instruction Suppressing Safety Report State
Engineer Doe's obligation to document and report environmental findings
Engineer Doe's ethical obligation to report findings to the authority
Engineer Doe concluded that the plant's discharge would lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards
Engineer Doe verbally advised the XYZ Corporation of his findings
XYZ Corporation explicitly instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report after he verbally advised them of findings showing discharge would lower water quality below established standards
BER 76-4 Public Safety at Risk from Environmental Discharge
From Engineer Doe's conclusion that discharge would lower water quality below standards through the public hearing
Quality of receiving body of water relative to established environmental standards
Not resolved within the case facts presented
a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety
Engineer Doe's technical conclusion that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below established standards
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 08-10
More recently in BER Case 08-10, Engineer A, an experienced professional engineer, was employed by MedTech, a company that manufactured medical equipment.
The Board concluded that it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem.
only if such efforts did not produce satisfactory results should Engineer A consider exploring external avenues for action.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer A's obligations in the present case
Cited as precedent establishing the graduated internal escalation framework engineers must follow before threatening or pursuing external regulatory reporting, and the ethical constraints on premature ultimatums to management regarding regulatory disclosure
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 76-4
in BER Case No. 76-4, the XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it had 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water.
In concluding that Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, the Board concluded that upon learning of the hearing, Engineer Doe was squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about Engineer A's obligations
Cited as precedent establishing that an engineer has an ethical obligation to report findings to a public authority when a client suppresses adverse environmental data and a public hearing is convened, grounding the principle that public safety obligations are paramount over client confidentiality
BER Multi-Case Synthesis Consumer Product Safety Calibration
Multi-Case BER Precedent Synthesis for Consumer Product Safety Reporting Calibration Capability
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review possesses the capability to synthesize BER Cases 76-4 and 08-10 as a calibrated precedent framework for determining the appropriate scope and sequence of safety reporting obligations in the current case involving general safety concerns, absent standards, and post-employment hearing participation
The BER synthesized multiple prior cases to establish the appropriate calibrated framework for Engineer A's reporting obligations in the current case
The BER's discussion synthesizing BER Cases 76-4 and 08-10 to establish the calibrated framework applied to Engineer A's current situation
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has considered this ethical dilemma on several occasions, and the Board's decision in each of these situations depends on the specific facts and circumstances involved.
CausalLink_Consider Testifying at Public
CausalLink_Escalate with External Reporti
CausalLink_Recommend Additional Safety Te
CausalLink_Reject Additional Testing Reco
CausalLink_Report Findings to Regulatory
CausalLink_Verbally Report Findings to Cl
Client Confidentiality vs. Public Safety Balancing Framework
Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing
Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X
Engineer A in evaluating the ethics of hearing participation
Governs how Engineer A must balance confidentiality obligations to former employer Company X against the paramount obligation to protect consumer safety when deciding whether and how to testify at the public safety standards hearing
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from NSPE Code and professional norms)
Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X.
If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's competing obligations
Applied to determine the conditions under which Engineer A may participate in the public safety hearing without violating confidentiality obligations to Company X, and to establish the graduated escalation steps before external reporting is warranted
Client Report Suppression Prohibition Invoked BER 76-4
State Pollution Control Authority BER 76-4
XYZ Corporation terminated Engineer Doe's contract and instructed him not to render a written report after receiving adverse verbal findings — the Board found this created an obligation for Engineer Doe to report findings to the regulatory authority when he learned of the public hearing
The client's instruction to suppress a written report containing findings material to public health and safety does not discharge the engineer's obligation — when the client then presents contrary data to a regulatory authority, the suppression instruction is overridden by the public welfare obligation
Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer
the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report to the corporation. Thereafter, Engineer Doe learned that the authority had called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation had presented data to support its view that the present discharge met minimum standards.
Client's authority to suppress a written report does not extend to authorizing the engineer to remain silent when the client actively misrepresents findings to a regulatory authority in a public hearing
Company X Absent Standards Employer Reasonableness Non-Violation Constraint
Company X declined to pursue additional internal testing of the new consumer product on cost and schedule grounds, in the absence of any governmental or industry standards specifically addressing the product
Engineer A and professional ethics reviewing bodies
Absent Standards Employer Reasonableness Non-Ethical-Violation Constraint
In the absence of governmental or industry standards to guide Company X's product safety decisions, Engineer A and professional ethics reviewing bodies are constrained from characterizing Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing as an ethical violation, recognizing that the regulatory standards vacuum creates a zone of reasonable employer discretion.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER case analysis of present case
Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
At the time of Company X's rejection of additional safety testing and throughout the ethics review
Company X Cost-Driven Rejection of Additional Safety Testing
From Company X's rejection of Engineer A's recommendation through Engineer A's resignation and the subsequent standards hearing announcement
Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
Client Safety Recommendation Rejection Without Standards Basis State
Company X's rejection of Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing
Not formally resolved within the facts; Engineer A resigns and the government agency later initiates a standards hearing
Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing citing potential cost and delay
Company X Employer Reasonableness Recognition Absent Standards Context
Company X declined to pursue additional internal testing of the new consumer product after Engineer A raised general safety concerns. No governmental or industry standards existed to guide Company X's safety testing decisions. The Board found it 'not unreasonable' for Company X to decline additional testing in this context.
Engineer A (Company X, current case) and ethics reviewing bodies
Employer Reasonableness Recognition in Absent-Standards Context Obligation
Engineer A and the Board of Ethical Review were obligated to recognize that Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing — in response to Engineer A's general concerns about inconsistent performance, in the absence of any applicable governmental or industry standards — was not unreasonable, and that this employer reasonableness is a relevant factor in calibrating Engineer A's post-rejection escalation obligations.
Given that there were no governmental or industry standards to guide Company X, it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product.
At the time Company X declined to pursue additional internal testing following Engineer A's safety concern recommendation
Company X Employer Reasonableness in Absent Standards Context
Employer Reasonableness Recognition in Absent-Standards Context Capability
Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing protocols was recognized as not unreasonable given the absence of governmental or industry standards to guide the decision
Company X declined to pursue additional internal testing of the new consumer product after Engineer A raised general safety concerns based on inconsistent performance, in a context where no governmental or industry standards existed to guide the decision
The BER's determination that Company X's rejection of additional testing was not an unreasonable decision given the absence of applicable standards, distinguishing this from the MedTech BER 08-10 situation involving a specific identified design defect
Company X (Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case)
Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer
{'industry': 'Consumer product manufacturing', 'decision': 'Rejected additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds', 'regulatory_status': 'Subject to government public safety standards hearing'}
Company X employs Engineer A in consumer product design and manufacturing, completes standard safety testing, rejects Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing due to cost and delay concerns, and is the subject of the subsequent government public safety standards hearing.
{'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
{'type': 'subject_of', 'target': 'Government Safety Standards Hearing Authority'}
Engineer A works for Company X in connection with the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product
Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing
Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case
{'type': 'Private product manufacturer', 'context': 'New consumer product without existing standards'}
Private manufacturer that developed a new consumer product; received Engineer A's safety concerns regarding inconsistent performance; declined to pursue additional internal testing given absence of governmental or industry standards; subject to Engineer A's subsequent public safety standards hearing testimony.
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer'}
it is not unreasonable for Company X to not pursue additional internal testing of the new product
Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
Company X Safety Rejection Ethical Violation Recognition
Employer Cost-Schedule Rejection Non-Acquiescence Safety Escalation Capability
Company X lacked — or failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that rejecting Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing solely on cost and schedule grounds, when unique safety concerns had been identified, constituted an ethical violation of the obligation to hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare.
Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, failing to recognize that this rejection — in the face of identified unique safety concerns and a regulatory gap — constituted an ethical violation.
Company X's rejection of Engineer A's additional safety testing recommendation based solely on cost and schedule considerations, without adequate consideration of the identified unique safety concerns.
Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation that it perform additional safety testing.
Company X Safety Testing Rejection Ethical Violation
Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing due to potential cost and delay, despite Engineer A's identification of inconsistent product performance issues raising unique safety concerns.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Safety Override Obligation
Company X was obligated to refrain from rejecting Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing solely on cost and schedule grounds when the recommendation was grounded in an engineer's professional identification of unique safety concerns not captured by standard testing, recognizing that economic considerations do not override the obligation to ensure consumer product safety.
At the time of Company X's decision to reject the additional safety testing recommendation.
Company X Standard Safety Testing Policies and Procedures
Company X (internal) and/or industry standard bodies
Consumer Product Safety Testing Standard
Company X's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters)
Currently, there are no governmental or industry standards relating to this new consumer product other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures
Company X and Engineer A in evaluating product safety adequacy
The completed safety testing process that demonstrated the product is within acceptable safety parameters, against which Engineer A's additional safety concerns are evaluated
Company X rejecting the recommendation before Engineer A's resignation
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying; (2) Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner; and (3) Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X’s product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X.
Beyond the Board's three stated conditions for ethical participation, the temporal gap of one year between Engineer A's resignation and the public safety standards hearing introduces a distinct epistemic obligation that the Board did not address: Engineer A must affirmatively assess whether the safety concerns observed during employment remain materially accurate at the time of testimony. If Company X has modified the product design, conducted additional testing, or otherwise addressed the performance inconsistencies in the intervening year, Engineer A's testimony based on stale observations could mislead the hearing authority rather than inform it. Objectivity under Code Section II.3.a requires not merely that Engineer A believe what is said, but that the factual basis for the testimony be current enough to support the conclusions offered. Engineer A therefore bears a pre-testimony duty of epistemic diligence — to the extent possible without breaching confidentiality — to determine whether the conditions that gave rise to the safety concern still obtain, and to qualify testimony accordingly if they cannot be verified.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A may participate provided confidentiality agreements are not violated implicitly assumes that the boundary between general professional knowledge and employer-specific confidential information is clear and stable. In practice, this boundary is highly porous in the context of a novel consumer product operating in a regulatory standards vacuum. Because no external standards exist against which to benchmark the product's safety performance, virtually any technically meaningful testimony Engineer A could offer about performance inconsistencies would necessarily draw on observations made exclusively within Company X's proprietary testing environment. The Board's third condition — non-disclosure of confidential information — may therefore be structurally difficult to satisfy without reducing Engineer A's testimony to generalities so abstract as to be of limited value to the hearing authority. The Board should have acknowledged this structural tension and provided guidance on how Engineer A can calibrate testimony to remain within the confidentiality boundary while still fulfilling the public interest testimony obligation. One workable approach consistent with Code Section III.4 is for Engineer A to testify about the category of safety concern — the nature of the performance inconsistency and the type of additional testing that would be warranted — without identifying Company X's specific product data, internal deliberations, or proprietary design details.
The Board's analysis treats Engineer A's participation as a binary ethical question — permissible or not — but does not address the prior and arguably more pressing question of whether Engineer A had an affirmative obligation to escalate safety concerns to the government agency immediately after Company X rejected the additional testing recommendation, rather than waiting one year until a public hearing was announced. Code Section II.1.a imposes a duty to notify appropriate authorities when engineering judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property. The absence of applicable governmental or industry standards does not extinguish this duty; if anything, the regulatory vacuum heightens it, because the public safety hearing is not the only institutional mechanism available and may not be the most timely one. The one-year delay, while not rendering Engineer A's eventual testimony unethical, does suggest that Engineer A may have underweighted the proactive risk disclosure obligation in the period immediately following Company X's rejection. The Board's silence on this point leaves open a significant gap in the ethical analysis: the permissibility of eventual testimony does not retroactively satisfy any obligation that may have existed to report earlier. Engineers facing analogous situations should understand that the ethical clock on escalation begins at the moment of employer rejection, not at the moment a convenient institutional forum appears.
The Board's conclusion implicitly treats Engineer A's status as a private citizen and former employee as ethically neutral relative to a retained expert witness, but this equivalence deserves scrutiny. A retained expert witness operates under formal procedural constraints — disclosure obligations, cross-examination, daubert-type competence standards — that provide institutional checks on bias and epistemic overreach. Engineer A, appearing as a private citizen witness, operates without these structural safeguards. This asymmetry does not render Engineer A's participation unethical, but it does place a heightened self-imposed obligation on Engineer A to police the appearance of personal grievance, to distinguish between professional safety judgment and residual resentment toward a former employer that rejected a recommendation and contributed to a resignation, and to present testimony in a manner that a neutral professional would recognize as objective. The virtue ethics framework is particularly apt here: the professional virtues of courage, integrity, and practical wisdom require Engineer A not merely to testify, but to testify in a manner that would withstand scrutiny from a reasonable peer who knew both the safety concern and the employment history. The Board's condition of objectivity, while necessary, is insufficient without this additional self-critical dimension.
Drawing on the BER 76-4 precedent involving Engineer Doe, a critical distinction emerges that the Board in the present case did not fully develop: in BER 76-4, Engineer Doe's safety concern was grounded in a confirmed violation of an existing environmental standard, which meant the confidentiality constraint under Code Section III.4 was clearly displaced by the public danger exception. In the present case, Engineer A's concern is grounded in observed performance inconsistencies in a regulatory standards vacuum — a materially weaker epistemic foundation. This distinction has two analytical consequences the Board should have addressed. First, the good faith belief standard that suffices to permit testimony in the present case would not have been sufficient to compel testimony in the BER 76-4 scenario; the presence of a confirmed violation in BER 76-4 converted permission into obligation. Second, because Engineer A's concern lacks the anchor of a violated standard, the epistemic qualification constraint is more demanding: Engineer A must be especially careful to frame testimony as professional judgment about observed inconsistencies and the need for further investigation, rather than as a finding of demonstrated danger. The absence of applicable standards cuts both ways — it heightens the importance of the hearing as a standard-setting mechanism, but it also means Engineer A cannot claim the authority of a violated benchmark to support the testimony.
The Board's three conditions for ethical participation — technical competence, objectivity, and confidentiality compliance — are framed as independent requirements, but they interact in ways that create a compound constraint the Board did not analyze. Specifically, the confidentiality constraint may limit the scope of testimony that Engineer A can offer, and that limitation in turn affects whether Engineer A can satisfy the technical competence condition in a meaningful sense. If the most technically significant safety observations Engineer A possesses are inseparable from confidential product-specific data, then complying with the confidentiality constraint may reduce Engineer A's testimony to a level of generality at which Engineer A no longer qualifies as a competent expert on the specific safety question before the hearing. In that scenario, Engineer A would face a trilemma: breach confidentiality to testify competently, testify incompetently to preserve confidentiality, or decline to testify. The Board's framework does not resolve this trilemma. The most ethically defensible resolution, consistent with Code Sections II.3.b and III.4, is that Engineer A should testify only to the extent that technically meaningful and accurate testimony can be offered without breaching confidentiality, and should explicitly disclose to the hearing authority the existence and nature of the limitation — without revealing the confidential content — so that the hearing authority can assess the weight and completeness of the testimony accordingly.
In response to Q101, Engineer A did not have a clear ethical obligation to report safety concerns to a governmental authority immediately after Company X rejected the additional testing recommendation. At that moment, no applicable governmental or industry standards existed for the product, no confirmed safety failure had occurred, and Engineer A's concerns were grounded in observed performance inconsistencies rather than a documented violation of an established standard. Code Section II.1.a requires notification to authorities when engineering judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, but the threshold of 'endangerment' requires more than a good-faith professional concern in a regulatory vacuum. The absence of any governing standard meant there was no objective benchmark against which Company X's product could be declared non-compliant or dangerous. Immediate external disclosure at that stage would have risked premature harm to Company X's commercial interests without a sufficiently firm epistemic foundation. The one-year gap, while not ideal, does not itself constitute an ethical failure, because the triggering institutional mechanism — the public safety standards hearing — did not exist until the government agency announced it. Engineer A's ethical obligation to escalate externally crystallized when that hearing was announced, not when the internal recommendation was rejected.
In response to Q102, the one-year temporal gap between Engineer A's resignation and the public safety hearing does introduce a meaningful epistemic constraint on the reliability of Engineer A's testimony, though it does not render participation unethical. Product designs, manufacturing processes, and safety testing data may have evolved during that interval, and Engineer A's knowledge is necessarily frozen at the point of departure from Company X. This temporal attenuation has two ethical implications. First, Engineer A has an obligation under Code Section II.3.a to be objective and truthful, which requires explicitly framing testimony as reflecting conditions observed during employment rather than asserting current product status. Second, Engineer A must exercise professional competence in acknowledging the limits of that knowledge, particularly if competitors' products or updated versions of Company X's product are also under review at the hearing. The temporal gap does not diminish the ethical weight of Engineer A's testimony about the systemic regulatory gap — the absence of standards applicable to this product category — because that structural observation remains valid regardless of product-specific changes. However, product-specific safety claims must be qualified accordingly. The Board's condition requiring objective and truthful testimony implicitly encompasses this epistemic honesty obligation.
In response to Q103, Company X's rejection of Engineer A's additional safety testing recommendation occupies an ethically ambiguous rather than clearly violative position. On one hand, the product had passed standard safety testing within accepted parameters, no applicable governmental or industry standards mandated further testing, and the rejection was driven by cost and delay considerations that are commercially legitimate in the absence of a regulatory requirement. On the other hand, when a qualified engineer raises specific, professionally grounded safety concerns based on observed performance inconsistencies — concerns that the completed standard testing did not address — an employer's refusal to investigate those concerns solely on cost grounds represents a failure to give adequate weight to the public safety paramount principle. The ethical violation, if any, is not that Company X declined optional testing, but that it declined without engaging substantively with the engineering basis for Engineer A's concern. A commercially reasonable decision in an absent-standards context is not automatically an ethically reasonable one when a credentialed engineer has identified a specific, articulable safety gap. The Board's framework implicitly acknowledges this by treating Engineer A's concern as legitimate enough to support public testimony, which would be incoherent if Company X's rejection were entirely beyond ethical reproach.
In response to Q104, Engineer A's status as a private citizen rather than a retained expert witness materially changes the ethical texture of the analysis in two respects, though not the ultimate permissibility of participation. As a private citizen acting on personal professional judgment rather than as a hired advocate, Engineer A faces a reduced risk of the structural bias that retained expert witnesses carry — namely, the financial incentive to shade testimony toward the retaining party's position. This actually strengthens the objectivity dimension of the Board's three conditions. However, Engineer A's status as a former employee who resigned after a conflict with Company X introduces a different appearance problem: the testimony may be perceived as motivated by personal grievance rather than disinterested professional concern. This appearance risk does not make participation unethical, but it does impose a heightened obligation on Engineer A to ensure that testimony is scrupulously confined to technically grounded observations, explicitly qualified as reflecting conditions at the time of employment, and free of any advocacy framing that could suggest retaliatory intent. Code Section II.3.b permits engineers to express public technical opinions founded on knowledge and competence, and this provision applies with equal force to private citizens as to retained experts. The ethical burden is on Engineer A to demonstrate through the substance and tone of testimony that the public safety motivation is genuine and primary.
In response to Q201, the tension between the Confidentiality principle under Code Section III.4 and the Public Welfare Paramount principle under Code Section I.1 is real but resolvable in this case without requiring either principle to be entirely displaced. The confidentiality obligation survives post-employment and prohibits Engineer A from disclosing, without consent, confidential information concerning Company X's business affairs or technical processes. However, the public welfare paramount principle does not require Engineer A to disclose confidential specifics in order to serve the hearing's purpose. The hearing is a standard-setting proceeding, not a product liability adjudication. Engineer A can provide substantial value to the hearing by testifying about the general category of safety concerns observed, the nature of the performance inconsistencies at a level of abstraction that does not reveal proprietary design details, and the structural inadequacy of existing testing frameworks for this product category — all without breaching confidentiality. The ethical resolution is not a hierarchy in which one principle defeats the other, but a calibration in which Engineer A contributes the maximum safety-relevant information that can be shared without crossing the confidentiality boundary. Only if Engineer A possessed knowledge of an imminent, specific, and serious danger to the public — analogous to the confirmed violation in BER 76-4 — would the confidentiality obligation be fully displaced by the public danger exception.
In response to Q203, a good-faith professional belief based on observed performance inconsistencies is a sufficient epistemic basis for participation in a public safety standards hearing, but it is not a sufficient basis for asserting confirmed danger as a matter of fact. The distinction is critical. Code Section II.3.b permits engineers to express publicly technical opinions founded on knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter. A good-faith concern grounded in direct professional observation during product development satisfies the 'knowledge of the facts' requirement — Engineer A witnessed the inconsistencies firsthand. Professional competence in risk assessment then converts those observations into a reasoned safety concern. What good faith alone cannot support is testimony that characterizes the product as definitively unsafe or that overstates the certainty of harm. Engineer A's epistemic obligation is to present the concern as what it is: a professionally grounded inference from observed data that warrants further investigation, not a confirmed finding of danger. This framing is not merely a rhetorical nicety — it is the ethical boundary between legitimate expert opinion and misleading testimony. The potential commercial harm to Company X from overstated testimony makes this epistemic precision an ethical imperative, not just a professional courtesy.
In response to Q301, from a deontological perspective, Engineer A does not face a categorical, unconditional duty to testify at the public safety standards hearing in the Kantian sense, but does face a strong prima facie duty that is difficult to override. The NSPE Code imposes an affirmative obligation to hold public safety paramount and, under Code Section II.1.a, to notify appropriate authorities when engineering judgment is overruled in ways that may endanger life or property. The public safety hearing is precisely the institutional mechanism through which that notification can be made. A strict deontological reading would hold that Engineer A's duty to testify is not contingent on personal convenience, reputational risk, or the uncertainty of outcome — the duty flows from the role of engineer and the nature of the safety concern, not from a calculation of consequences. However, the deontological framework also recognizes that duties can conflict: the duty of confidentiality is itself a genuine obligation, not merely a preference. The resolution is not that public safety always defeats confidentiality categorically, but that Engineer A has a duty to testify to the maximum extent that confidentiality permits. Silence in the face of a government-convened safety hearing, when Engineer A possesses relevant professional knowledge, would be difficult to justify on deontological grounds as anything other than a failure of professional duty.
In response to Q302, from a consequentialist perspective, the aggregate public safety benefit of Engineer A's testimony at the hearing plausibly outweighs the identified harms, but the analysis is more nuanced than a simple benefit-harm comparison. On the benefit side, Engineer A's testimony could contribute to the establishment of safety standards for an entire product category affecting all consumers of this class of products — a systemic benefit that extends far beyond the specific Company X product. The hearing is precisely the institutional mechanism designed to aggregate such professional knowledge into protective regulation. On the harm side, the risks include: inadvertent confidentiality breach harming Company X's competitive position, reputational damage to Company X based on unverified concerns, and the epistemic uncertainty inherent in testimony grounded in performance inconsistencies rather than confirmed failures. The consequentialist calculus favors testimony because: (1) the Board's three conditions — technical competence, objectivity, and confidentiality compliance — substantially mitigate the identified harms; (2) the systemic benefit of sound safety standards is large and durable; and (3) the cost of Engineer A's silence — a missed opportunity to inform a once-in-a-generation standard-setting process for a new product category — is itself a significant harm to the public interest. The epistemic uncertainty in Engineer A's concerns is a reason for careful framing of testimony, not for silence.
In response to Q303, from a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's decision to testify within the Board's three stated conditions — technical competence, objectivity, and confidentiality compliance — represents a paradigmatic exercise of the professional virtues of courage, integrity, and practical wisdom. Courage is demonstrated by willingness to participate in a public proceeding that carries reputational risk and potential legal exposure from a former employer, motivated by professional duty rather than personal gain. Integrity is demonstrated by the commitment to testify truthfully and objectively even when a more self-protective course — silence — is available and arguably defensible. Practical wisdom, the Aristotelian virtue of phronesis, is demonstrated precisely by the calibrated approach the Board's conditions embody: neither the excess of reckless disclosure that ignores confidentiality obligations, nor the deficiency of cowardly silence that abandons public safety obligations, but the mean of principled, bounded, competent testimony. The virtue ethics analysis also highlights that the manner of testimony matters as much as the decision to testify: an engineer who testifies with epistemic humility, acknowledges the limits of personal knowledge, and refrains from advocacy framing demonstrates greater professional virtue than one who testifies with certainty or apparent animus toward a former employer.
In response to Q304, from a deontological perspective, the absence of applicable governmental or industry safety standards for Company X's new product heightens rather than diminishes Engineer A's duty to testify. The deontological reasoning proceeds as follows: the NSPE Code's public safety paramount obligation is not contingent on the existence of a regulatory framework — it is a foundational professional duty that exists independently of whether standards have been codified. In a regulatory vacuum, the public safety hearing is not merely one of several available mechanisms for Engineer A to fulfill the notification obligation under Code Section II.1.a — it is the primary and perhaps only institutional mechanism through which Engineer A's professional judgment can be converted into protective standards applicable to the entire product category. The absence of standards means that Engineer A's testimony carries greater marginal value than it would in a mature regulatory environment where other engineers, inspectors, and compliance mechanisms already exist to surface safety concerns. A deontological framework that grounds duty in the nature of the professional role and the vulnerability of the public would therefore conclude that the regulatory vacuum creates a heightened, not diminished, obligation to participate — because the hearing is the mechanism through which the vacuum itself is addressed.
In response to Q401, if Engineer A were still employed by Company X at the time of the public safety standards hearing, the ethical calculus would change materially and the Board's three conditions would be insufficient on their own to resolve the resulting tension. An active employment relationship creates a faithful agent obligation under the NSPE Code that does not exist post-employment. Testifying at a public hearing about safety concerns that Company X has already rejected — while still employed there — would place Engineer A in direct conflict with the employer's interests in a way that resignation has already resolved in the current case. The active employment context would require Engineer A to first exhaust all internal escalation pathways, including escalation above Supervisor B to senior management or a board-level safety committee, before considering external testimony. If internal escalation were exhausted and the safety concern remained unaddressed, the Code's public safety paramount obligation would still permit — and potentially require — external disclosure, but the faithful agent obligation would demand that Engineer A provide Company X with notice and an opportunity to respond before testifying publicly. The Board's three conditions address the content and manner of testimony but do not address the procedural obligations that active employment would impose. A fourth condition — exhaustion of internal remedies — would be necessary to resolve the tension in the active employment scenario.
In response to Q402, if Engineer A had escalated safety concerns directly to the relevant government agency immediately after Company X rejected the additional testing recommendation, that earlier disclosure would have been ethically permissible but not ethically required, and potentially premature given the epistemic and regulatory context at that time. It would have been permissible because Code Section II.1.a does not specify a waiting period before notifying appropriate authorities when engineering judgment is overruled in ways that may endanger life or property. However, it would not have been required because: (1) no imminent harm had materialized; (2) no applicable regulatory standards existed against which the product could be declared non-compliant; (3) the relevant government agency had not yet established a forum for receiving such concerns; and (4) Engineer A's concerns were grounded in performance inconsistencies rather than a confirmed safety failure. Premature disclosure to a government agency without an established regulatory framework or hearing process risks being ineffective — the agency may have no mechanism to act on the concern — and could expose Engineer A to confidentiality liability without producing any public safety benefit. The ethical calculus favors waiting for the institutional mechanism — the public hearing — to exist before escalating externally, provided Engineer A did not observe any escalation in the safety risk during the intervening period that would have triggered an immediate reporting obligation.
In response to Q403, drawing on the BER 76-4 precedent, if Engineer A's safety concerns had been based on a confirmed, documented violation of an existing standard rather than a good-faith belief about inconsistent performance in a regulatory vacuum, the confidentiality constraint under Code Section III.4 would not have been entirely displaced, but the public danger exception would have operated with far greater force, and Engineer A would have faced an obligation — not merely a permission — to testify. In BER 76-4, Engineer Doe's situation involved a confirmed violation of an established environmental standard, which the Board treated as triggering a clear duty to report despite confidentiality instructions. The key distinction is that a confirmed violation of an existing standard provides the objective, verifiable basis that transforms a professional concern into a public danger — the epistemic threshold that justifies overriding confidentiality. In the current case, the absence of applicable standards means there is no benchmark against which a 'violation' can be confirmed, which is precisely why the Board treats Engineer A's participation as ethically permissible rather than obligatory. A confirmed violation in an existing-standards context would shift the analysis from permissibility to obligation, and would require Engineer A to disclose the specific safety information necessary to protect the public even if that disclosure incidentally revealed confidential details — subject to the constraint that disclosure be limited to what is necessary to address the danger.
In response to Q404, if Engineer A's testimony were to inadvertently reveal proprietary details about Company X's product design — even without intent to breach confidentiality — the resulting harm to Company X's competitive position would not retroactively render Engineer A's participation unethical, provided the Board's three conditions were met in good faith. The ethical evaluation of conduct is assessed at the time of the decision and action, not retroactively by reference to unintended consequences that a reasonable person could not have foreseen. If Engineer A exercised genuine professional judgment in calibrating testimony to avoid confidential specifics, testified truthfully and objectively, and possessed the requisite technical competence, then an inadvertent disclosure that resulted from the inherent difficulty of separating general safety knowledge from proprietary knowledge does not constitute an ethical violation — it constitutes an unfortunate but non-culpable outcome. However, this insulation from retroactive ethical liability is conditional: it applies only if Engineer A made a genuine, documented effort to identify and avoid confidential information before testifying, and did not take undue risks with information that a reasonable engineer would have recognized as proprietary. If Engineer A was reckless or insufficiently careful in that pre-testimony assessment, the inadvertent disclosure would reflect a failure to meet the Board's third condition in good faith, and the ethical insulation would not apply. The public safety imperative justifies the risk of participation but does not excuse negligence in managing that risk.
The tension between Confidentiality and Public Welfare Paramount was resolved not by displacing confidentiality entirely, but by drawing a precise boundary: Engineer A may testify about professional observations, engineering judgment, and safety concerns without disclosing the proprietary business details, internal deliberations, or product design specifics that confidentiality agreements protect. This resolution treats the two principles as operating on different domains of information rather than as direct competitors. Public welfare paramount governs what Engineer A is permitted — and arguably obligated — to say about safety concerns observed through professional competence; confidentiality governs the channel and content of disclosure, not the decision to participate at all. The case therefore teaches that confidentiality is a constraint on the manner of public safety disclosure, not a veto over it, particularly in a post-employment context where the engineer participates as a private citizen rather than as a company representative.
The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits and Proactive Risk Disclosure was resolved at the moment Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional testing, not at the moment Engineer A chose to testify. The case reveals a sequential principle structure: the faithful agent obligation is primary and requires internal escalation first, but it is exhausted — not merely weakened — once the employer has made a final cost-driven rejection of a safety recommendation in a regulatory vacuum. After that rejection, the proactive risk disclosure principle becomes operative and is no longer constrained by the faithful agent duty. Engineer A's resignation further confirms this transition: by departing, Engineer A formally exited the agency relationship, removing any residual argument that testifying at a public hearing would constitute a breach of ongoing employer loyalty. The case teaches that faithful agent obligations are temporally bounded by both the employer's final decision and the termination of the employment relationship itself.
The tension between the Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting and Professional Competence in Risk Assessment was resolved by the Board in a manner that treats good faith professional judgment as a sufficient — though not unlimited — epistemic basis for public testimony, provided that testimony is framed as expert opinion grounded in observed facts rather than as a confirmed finding of defect. This resolution carries an important prioritization lesson: the absence of a documented safety failure or an applicable standard does not raise the evidentiary bar for testimony to the level of certainty; it instead shifts the framing obligation onto the engineer. Engineer A must testify as a competent professional offering a reasoned opinion about observed performance inconsistencies, not as a whistleblower asserting a proven violation. The Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation actually heightens rather than diminishes the value of this testimony precisely because the public hearing is the institutional mechanism through which good-faith professional judgment is converted into protective standards. The case therefore teaches that in a regulatory vacuum, the epistemic threshold for testimony is calibrated to the standard of professional competence — what a qualified engineer in good faith believes based on observed evidence — rather than to the higher standard of confirmed harm or existing regulatory violation.
Confidentiality Invoked In Post-Employment Testimony Context
Company X proprietary product information
Government public safety standards hearing testimony
Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Obligation
Engineer A's post-employment testimony at the government safety standards hearing must be calibrated to avoid disclosure of Company X's proprietary product information beyond what is necessary to serve the public safety purpose of the hearing
Post-employment confidentiality obligations survive resignation and require Engineer A to distinguish between safety-relevant observations that must be shared with regulators and proprietary technical details that can be withheld without compromising the public safety purpose of the testimony
Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
Confidentiality yields to public safety disclosure obligations when the information is necessary to protect the public, but continues to constrain disclosure of proprietary information that is not necessary for the regulatory purpose
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure Invoked BER 76-4
Engineer Doe's confidentiality obligation to XYZ Corporation did not bar him from reporting his technical findings to the State Pollution Control Authority when the corporation was actively misrepresenting those findings at a public hearing, because the disclosure served the public welfare purpose of the ethics code
Confidentiality obligations that protect client technical processes and business affairs do not bar disclosure to regulatory authorities when the client is actively misrepresenting findings that are material to public health and safety determinations
Confidentiality Non-Applicability to Public Danger Disclosure
Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, the Board concluded that upon learning of the hearing, Engineer Doe was squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
Public danger disclosure supersedes confidentiality when the client's active misrepresentation at a regulatory hearing creates an imminent public welfare harm that the engineer's silence would perpetuate
The NSPE Code requires that his duty to the public to be paramount
Confidentiality Principle Invoked Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Testimony Constraint
Government Safety Standards Hearing Authority
Engineer A's post-employment participation in the government safety standards hearing is conditioned on not disclosing any information regarding Company X's product that would violate applicable confidentiality agreements — confidentiality obligations survive the employment relationship
Confidentiality agreements with former employers remain binding post-employment and constrain the scope of permissible testimony at governmental hearings, requiring the engineer to testify about general product category safety concerns without disclosing Company X-specific confidential information
Board resolves the tension by holding that Engineer A may testify about general product safety concerns without disclosing Company X-specific confidential information — the confidentiality obligation constrains the form and scope of testimony but does not prohibit participation entirely
the NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as... (3) Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
Governmental agencies and industry bodies
Governmental and Industry Product Safety Standards
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Company X's conduct and Engineer A's obligations
Referenced as the absent or undeveloped standard framework: the lack of governmental or industry standards for Company X's new product is cited as a mitigating factor in evaluating Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing, and the public safety standards hearing is convened to develop such standards
Should Engineer A participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing, and if so, under what epistemic and confidentiality constraints must that testimony be calibrated?
Engineer A's decision whether to participate as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, one year after resigning from Company X, given good-faith safety concerns about the new consumer product that were rejected internally on cost and schedule grounds.
Participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing, testifying about the category of safety concern and the nature of observed performance inconsistencies at a level of abstraction that avoids Company X's proprietary design details, explicitly framing testimony as professional judgment based on conditions observed during employment rather than as confirmed findings of current product danger
Decline to participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing on the grounds that the one-year temporal gap, the absence of confirmed safety incidents, and the structural difficulty of separating safety observations from confidential product-specific knowledge make it impossible to testify in a manner that is simultaneously technically meaningful, objectively framed, and confidentiality-compliant
Participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing and testify fully about all observed performance inconsistencies and internal testing data, treating the public safety paramount principle as displacing post-employment confidentiality obligations given the regulatory vacuum and the absence of any other institutional mechanism through which the safety concern can be surfaced
After Company X rejected the additional safety testing recommendation on cost and schedule grounds, was Engineer A obligated to escalate the safety concern to a governmental authority immediately upon rejection, or was it ethically permissible to wait until the public safety standards hearing was announced approximately one year later?
Engineer A's decision whether to treat Company X's cost-driven rejection of the additional safety testing recommendation as a final resolution of the safety concern, or to assess whether the rejection triggers an escalating obligation to bring the concern to appropriate governmental authorities — and the timing of that escalation relative to the eventual public hearing.
After Company X's rejection, assess the safety concern as not yet meeting the urgency threshold for immediate external reporting given the absence of confirmed incidents, applicable standards, or an established regulatory forum, and wait for an appropriate institutional mechanism — such as the announced public safety standards hearing — before escalating externally, while remaining alert to any escalation in safety risk during the intervening period that would trigger an earlier reporting obligation
After Company X's rejection, escalate the safety concern directly to the relevant government agency without waiting for a formal hearing to be announced, treating the cost-driven rejection of a credentialed engineer's safety recommendation in a regulatory vacuum as itself sufficient to trigger the notification obligation under Code Section II.1.a regardless of whether an established regulatory forum yet exists
After Company X's rejection, exhaust remaining internal escalation channels above Supervisor B — including senior management or a board-level safety committee — before treating the rejection as final, and only upon confirmed exhaustion of all internal mechanisms assess whether the safety concern meets the threshold for external reporting to a governmental authority
Was Engineer A obligated to proactively recommend additional safety testing to Supervisor B based on observed performance inconsistencies, and does Company X's completion of standard safety testing preclude or extinguish that obligation?
Engineer A's obligation to recommend additional safety testing to Supervisor B after observing inconsistent product performance issues, notwithstanding Company X's completion of standard safety testing within acceptable parameters — and the ethical weight of that internal recommendation as a prerequisite to subsequent escalation.
Proactively recommend to Supervisor B that Company X conduct additional safety testing specifically designed to address the observed performance inconsistencies, explicitly identifying the unique safety concerns not captured by the completed standard testing and grounding the recommendation in specialized engineering competence rather than general caution
Document the observed performance inconsistencies in internal engineering records as a professional notation of residual concern, but defer to Company X's completion of standard safety testing as a sufficient basis for product release, treating the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards as confirmation that no additional testing obligation exists beyond what standard protocols require
Raise the observed performance inconsistencies informally with Supervisor B as a professional observation warranting monitoring during post-market surveillance, without formally recommending a new series of pre-release tests, on the grounds that the concerns are insufficiently specific to justify the cost and schedule impact of additional testing in the absence of any governing standard defining what additional testing would be required
Should Engineer A participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing, and if so, under what epistemic and confidentiality constraints?
Engineer A Post-Employment Public Safety Hearing Participation Decision
Participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing, testifying about the category of safety concern and the nature of observed performance inconsistencies at a level of abstraction that avoids proprietary Company X product data, explicitly framing all product-specific observations as reflecting conditions at the time of employment and acknowledging the one-year temporal gap
Participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing and testify fully about all technically significant safety observations, including product-specific performance data, on the grounds that the public welfare paramount principle displaces the confidentiality obligation when a qualified engineer's judgment has been overruled in a regulatory vacuum and the hearing is the only available protective mechanism
Decline to participate as a witness at the public safety standards hearing on the grounds that the one-year temporal gap renders product-specific observations potentially unreliable, the confidentiality boundary cannot be reliably maintained without reducing testimony to useless abstraction, and the appearance of personal grievance from the resignation conflict cannot be adequately neutralized through self-imposed objectivity constraints alone
Was Company X's rejection of Engineer A's additional safety testing recommendation an ethical violation, and did Engineer A's non-acquiescence through resignation satisfy the non-acquiescence obligation under the NSPE Code?
Company X Safety Testing Rejection Ethical Status and Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Assessment
Recommend additional safety testing to Company X through formal internal channels, document the safety concern and the engineering basis for it in writing, and resign upon final rejection rather than acquiescing — preserving the non-acquiescence obligation without premature external disclosure
Recommend additional safety testing internally, and upon rejection escalate immediately to the relevant government agency with a formal safety concern report, on the grounds that the regulatory vacuum and the absence of any external oversight mechanism make immediate external escalation the only effective way to fulfill the proactive risk disclosure obligation
Recommend additional safety testing internally, and upon rejection accept Company X's cost-driven determination as within the range of reasonable employer discretion in an absent-standards context — continuing employment while documenting the concern for future reference but deferring to the employer's judgment absent a confirmed safety failure or applicable regulatory requirement
Did Engineer A have an ethical obligation to escalate safety concerns to a governmental authority immediately after Company X rejected the additional testing recommendation, or was waiting for the public hearing one year later ethically defensible given the epistemic and regulatory context?
Engineer A Immediate Post-Rejection External Reporting Obligation vs. Contextual Calibration of Escalation Timing
Wait for an established institutional forum — such as the announced public safety standards hearing — before escalating safety concerns externally, on the grounds that the endangerment threshold for mandatory immediate reporting was not clearly met and premature disclosure without an effective regulatory mechanism risks confidentiality liability without producing public safety benefit
Escalate safety concerns directly to the relevant government agency immediately after Company X's rejection, submitting a formal written safety concern report that frames the concern as professional judgment about observed performance inconsistencies warranting regulatory attention, without disclosing proprietary Company X product data
After resigning from Company X, monitor publicly available information about the product category and escalate to a government agency only if evidence of actual harm or a confirmed safety incident emerges during the intervening period, treating the absence of imminent harm and the absence of applicable standards as jointly sufficient to defer external reporting until a concrete triggering event occurs
Employer Reasonableness in Absent-Standards Context Invoked Company X Current Case
Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection
Company X's decision not to pursue additional internal testing beyond standard safety testing in response to Engineer A's general concerns about inconsistent product performance — in the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards — was found by the Board to be not unreasonable
The absence of applicable standards, combined with the general (non-specific, non-demonstrative) nature of Engineer A's safety concerns, calibrates the employer's obligation downward — the employer is not required to pursue unlimited additional testing in response to general concerns when no regulatory guidance exists
Employer Reasonableness in Absent-Standards Context
Board distinguishes the current case from BER 08-10 (specific identified defect) by noting that Engineer A's concerns were general rather than demonstrative — this distinction calibrates the employer's obligation and makes inaction 'not unreasonable' rather than an ethical violation
Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern
Engineer A BER 08-10 Internal Escalation Exhaustion Assessment
Internal Escalation Exhaustion Before External Reporting Assessment Capability
Engineer A at MedTech lacked the capability to correctly assess that internal escalation pathways had not been sufficiently exhausted before threatening external regulatory reporting — prematurely threatening external reporting to the manager rather than first determining what internal steps were being taken and exploring internal mechanisms for further recourse
Engineer A at MedTech identified a potentially dangerous relief valve placement in an infant respirator, reported it to a non-engineer manager, and after a month of inaction threatened external regulatory reporting rather than first exhausting internal escalation pathways
Engineer A's premature threat to report to a federal regulatory agency before exhausting internal escalation mechanisms, which the BER found to be unethical
Engineer A (BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer)
it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem
the Board decided that Engineer A should have sought to determine what internal steps were being taken to address the concerns. However, if after making the additional inquiries, Engineer A determined that no meaningful action was being taken to address the issue, Engineer A should have explored internal mechanisms within MedTech to seek further recourse regarding this issue.
Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Employer Rejection Non-Acquiescence
Engineer A at MedTech possessed the capability to recognize that MedTech's failure to take corrective action for over a year after receiving the safety concern report did not discharge the professional obligation to escalate the identified safety concern about the infant respirator's relief valve placement.
MedTech received Engineer A's safety concern report through a non-engineer manager and failed to take corrective action for over a year, requiring Engineer A to recognize that this inaction did not discharge the professional safety obligation.
Engineer A's continued pursuit of the safety concern after MedTech failed to take corrective action, reflecting non-acquiescence to the employer's inaction in the face of an identified safety risk.
Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer
MedTech Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer BER 08-10: Manufactured infant respirators; received Engineer A's safety concern report through a non-engineer manager; failed to take corrective action for over a year.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Medical equipment engineering (not a respirator expert)', 'employer': 'MedTech'}
Employed by MedTech; asked by colleague Engineer B to evaluate an infant respirator; identified a potentially dangerous relief valve placement; reported concern to a non-engineer manager; followed up when no action was taken; threatened to report to a federal regulatory agency; the Board found the threat premature and that internal escalation should have been exhausted first.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'MedTech Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer BER 08-10'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 08-10 MedTech Colleague'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'MedTech Non-Engineer Manager BER 08-10'}
Engineer A, an experienced professional engineer, was employed by MedTech
Engineer A indicated that if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem, he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency
Engineer A, although not an expert on respirators, determined that a relief valve intended to protect against overpressure being applied to the infant's lungs may have been incorrectly placed
Engineer A BER 08-10 Standard Testing Non-Preclusion Recognition
Standard Testing Compliance Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Concern Reporting Capability
Engineer A at MedTech possessed the capability to recognize that the infant respirator's compliance with existing safety standards did not preclude the professional obligation to report the potentially dangerous relief valve placement as a unique safety concern requiring further investigation.
Engineer A at MedTech identified a potentially dangerous relief valve placement on an infant respirator and reported it through proper channels, recognizing that the product's existing manufacture and distribution did not preclude the obligation to report the unique safety concern.
Engineer A's identification and reporting of the potentially dangerous relief valve placement on the infant respirator despite the product having been manufactured and distributed, reflecting recognition that standard compliance does not foreclose additional safety concern reporting.
Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer: Employed by MedTech; asked by colleague Engineer B to evaluate an infant respirator; identified a potentially dangerous relief valve placement; reported the concern.
Engineer A Citizen Advocacy Whistleblower Non-Suppression at Hearing
Engineer A is considering whether post-employment confidentiality obligations or other professional constraints prohibit participation in the government hearing. The whistleblower non-suppression principle establishes that such participation remains available regardless of other constraints.
Citizen Advocacy Whistleblower Non-Suppression Constraint
No provision of professional engineering ethics — including post-employment confidentiality obligations, the faithful agent duty to former employer Company X, or the absence of applicable product-specific safety standards — may be construed as prohibiting Engineer A from participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing when public health and safety is at risk from the new consumer product's unresolved performance inconsistencies.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 (hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare); whistleblower protection framework; BER Case 76-4
During Engineer A's consideration of participation in the government public safety standards hearing
Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns
Engineer A Completed Testing Non-Preclusion of Hearing Participation Constraint
Standard safety testing demonstrated the product is within acceptable safety parameters. Engineer A nonetheless holds a professional belief that performance inconsistencies raise unique safety concerns. The completed testing constrains but does not eliminate Engineer A's ability to raise concerns at the hearing.
Standard Safety Testing Completion Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Concern Reporting Obligation
The fact that Company X's standard safety testing was completed and demonstrated compliance with acceptable safety parameters does not preclude Engineer A from participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing — but it does constrain the form of that participation by requiring Engineer A to acknowledge the completed testing compliance while presenting the residual professional concern as a matter of engineering judgment rather than as evidence of testing failure.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 (hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare); NSPE Code Section II.3 (objective and truthful); BER Case 08-10
the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters)
During Engineer A's consideration of and participation in the government public safety standards hearing
Engineer A Confidential Information Non-Deployment Against Former Employer at Hearing
Engineer A possesses confidential internal knowledge of Company X's safety testing process, the rejection of additional testing recommendations, and internal product performance data. This insider knowledge must not be weaponized against Company X beyond what public safety necessity requires.
Insider Knowledge Non-Deployment Against Former Client Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from deploying specialized insider knowledge of Company X's internal deliberations, rejected safety recommendations, proprietary product design details, or strategic business decisions against Company X at the government public safety standards hearing — arising from the principle that prior access to confidential employer information creates a residual duty of non-adversarial use that survives employment termination, except to the minimum extent necessary to discharge the paramount public safety obligation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4 (faithful agent and trustee obligations); Section III.4 (confidential information from prior employment); BER Case 76-4
Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests
During Engineer A's participation as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, one year after resignation from Company X
Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation
Engineer A Confidential Information from Company X Employment
From Engineer A's employment through the present consideration of witness participation
Engineer A's possession of confidential product safety information and internal company deliberations acquired during employment with Company X
Not terminated; persists post-employment
Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues
Engineer A's participation in Company X's safety testing process and internal recommendation process created knowledge of confidential product and business information
Engineer A Confidentiality Agreement Non-Disclosure Constraint at Hearing
Engineer A holds confidential product safety information and internal company deliberations acquired during employment with Company X and is considering testifying at a government hearing covering Company X's product type
Post-Employment Confidentiality Boundary in Public Testimony Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from disclosing any information regarding Company X's product that would violate confidentiality agreements with Company X, even when participating in a government public safety standards hearing where such information might be relevant to the regulatory inquiry.
Confidentiality agreements with Company X; NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4
Throughout the government public safety standards hearing and post-employment period
Engineer A Consumer Product Inconsistent Performance Safety Recognition
Consumer Product Inconsistent Performance Safety Concern Recognition Capability
Engineer A possessed the technical and ethical capability to recognize that observed inconsistent product performance during and following standard safety testing indicated unique safety concerns requiring further investigation, despite the product's demonstrated compliance with standard safety parameters.
Engineer A observed inconsistent product performance during and after standard safety testing and correctly identified these as unique safety concerns requiring additional testing to determine whether the product would be operated safely by consumers.
Engineer A's identification of inconsistent product performance issues and formation of the professional opinion that these raised unique safety concerns warranting a new series of consumer safety tests.
Engineer A (Current Case Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer)
Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns.
Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers.
Engineer A Consumer Product Safety Design Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied)', 'employer': 'Company X', 'specialty': 'Consumer product design and safety'}
Engineer A is employed by Company X to work on the design and manufacturing of a new consumer product, observes inconsistent product performance issues raising unique safety concerns after standard safety testing, recommends additional testing to Supervisor B, is overruled on cost grounds, resigns, and one year later considers testifying at a government public safety standards hearing.
{'type': 'employee', 'target': 'Company X'}
{'type': 'potential_witness', 'target': 'Government Safety Standards Hearing'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Supervisor B'}
Engineer A Contextual Safety Reporting Calibration
Contextual Safety Reporting Calibration Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to calibrate the scope and form of public safety reporting obligations to the general, non-demonstrative nature of the safety concerns identified — recognizing that general inconsistent-performance concerns support permissible good-faith hearing participation and general regulatory notification rather than immediate mandatory external reporting
Engineer A identified general product safety concerns due to inconsistent performance, not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern, requiring calibration of the appropriate reporting response
Engineer A's recognition that the safety concerns were general and based on inconsistent product performance rather than clear or demonstrative expressed safety concerns, and the BER's calibration of the resulting obligations accordingly
it appears that Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern
There is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases.
Engineer A Current Case Consumer Product Inconsistent Performance Safety Recognition
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that observed inconsistent product performance — even when the product has passed standard safety testing — indicates unique safety concerns requiring further investigation and reporting to appropriate authorities
Engineer A observed inconsistent performance in a new consumer product developed by Company X and recognized this as indicating unique safety concerns beyond what standard testing had addressed
Engineer A's identification of general product safety concerns based on inconsistent performance and belief that the new product raised unique safety concerns requiring additional study and analysis
Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product
Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'Company X', 'context': 'New consumer product with no existing governmental or industry standards'}
Employed by Company X; identified general product safety concerns due to inconsistent product performance; believed the new product raised unique safety concerns requiring additional study; advised Company X of this; was rejected on cost/schedule grounds; subsequently participated as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing, which the Board found ethically permissible subject to competence, objectivity, and confidentiality conditions.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case'}
{'type': 'testifies_before', 'target': 'Government Public Safety Standards Hearing Authority'}
Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance
Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
Engineer A Current Case Contextual Calibration General vs Specific Safety Concern
Engineer A expressed general product safety concerns to Company X due to inconsistent performance, not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern. The Board distinguished this from the MedTech case involving a specific, identifiable relief valve placement defect, calibrating the reporting obligation accordingly.
Contextual Calibration of Public Safety Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to calibrate the scope and form of the public safety reporting obligation to the general, non-demonstrative nature of the identified safety concern — recognizing that general concerns about inconsistent product performance without confirmed incidents or specific defects trigger a more limited obligation to bring concerns to regulatory attention through appropriate channels, rather than the stronger immediate external reporting obligation triggered by clear, demonstrable defects.
it appears that Engineer A had expressed to Company X general product safety concerns regarding the new product due to inconsistent performance by the product and not due to any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern.
Throughout the period of employment and post-employment consideration of hearing participation
Engineers are sometimes presented with situations involving an impact on the public health and safety and must decide, after pointing out the situation, how far their obligation reaches in recommending corrective action.
Engineer A Current Case Employer Cost Rejection Non-Acquiescence Assessment
Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing. Engineer A continued to believe the product raised unique safety concerns. One year after resignation, Engineer A considered participating in the government public safety standards hearing. The Board found this participation permissible and consistent with the obligation to bring good faith safety concerns to regulatory attention.
Employer Cost-Rejection Non-Acquiescence Safety Escalation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, after Company X declined to pursue additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, to assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified safety concerns — even though general and non-demonstrative — required escalation beyond the employer relationship to appropriate regulatory or public authorities, and to pursue that escalation through the government public safety standards hearing.
Engineer A believed that the new product developed by Company X raised unique safety concerns that may require additional study and analysis, and he advised Company X of this fact.
After Company X's rejection of additional testing recommendation, through the post-employment period and hearing participation decision
Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Confidentiality Agreement Compliance Public Testimony
Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing one year after resigning from Company X. The Board conditions the permissibility of this participation on Engineer A not disclosing information that violates confidentiality agreements with Company X.
Post-Employment Proprietary Information Boundary in Public Testimony Obligation
Engineer A is obligated, as a condition of permissible participation in the government public safety standards hearing, to refrain from disclosing any information regarding Company X's product that would violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X, recognizing that the post-employment public welfare testimony obligation does not override contractual confidentiality obligations with respect to proprietary product information.
During and in preparation for participation in the government public safety standards hearing
The NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying; (2) Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner; and (3) Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X.
Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Proprietary Information Boundary
Post-Employment Proprietary Information Boundary Calibration in Public Testimony Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to calibrate testimony at the government public safety standards hearing to share safety-relevant information in the public interest while refraining from disclosing proprietary or confidential information belonging to Company X in violation of any confidentiality agreements
Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing one year after resigning from Company X, subject to the condition of not disclosing information that would violate confidentiality agreements with Company X
The BER's identification of the confidentiality condition as one of three prerequisites for permissible participation in the government safety standards hearing
Engineer A (Current Case Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness)
Engineer A is obligated, as a condition of permissible participation in the government public safety standards hearing, to refrain from disclosing any information regarding Company X's product that would violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'prior_employer': 'Company X', 'forum': 'Government public safety standards hearing'}
Former employee of Company X who participates as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing concerning the product category for which safety concerns were raised during employment; the Board found participation ethically permissible subject to competence, objectivity, and confidentiality conditions; if Engineer A has good faith belief of public safety concerns, should bring to appropriate governmental agency.
{'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Company X Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer Current Case'}
Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness Engineer
the NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing
Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis
Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner
Engineer A Current Case Regulatory Gap Heightened Escalation Recognition
Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Recognition Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that the absence of governmental or industry standards specifically addressing the new consumer product heightens rather than diminishes the professional obligation to bring safety concerns to the attention of appropriate governmental authorities
Engineer A identified unique safety concerns about a new consumer product in a context where no governmental or industry standards existed to guide the manufacturer, heightening the obligation to escalate to appropriate authorities
Engineer A's recognition that the unique safety concerns raised by the new product — in the absence of applicable standards — supported bringing concerns to appropriate governmental authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis
If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis
Engineer A Current Case Regulatory Gap Heightened Safety Escalation
No governmental or industry standards existed to guide Company X's safety testing decisions for the new consumer product. The government announced a public safety standards hearing covering new consumer products. Engineer A's participation in the hearing as a witness with good faith safety concerns was found permissible by the Board.
Regulatory Gap Heightened Safety Escalation Obligation
Engineer A's obligation to bring safety concerns about Company X's new consumer product to appropriate governmental authorities was heightened — not diminished — by the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards for the product, recognizing that the regulatory gap means Engineer A's specialized knowledge may be the primary mechanism for informing public safety decision-making in this domain through the government standards hearing.
Throughout the period of safety concern identification and post-employment hearing participation consideration
Engineer A Current Case Standard Safety Testing Non-Preclusion Additional Concern Reporting
Company X completed standard safety testing of the new consumer product. Engineer A believed the product raised unique safety concerns not captured by the completed standard testing due to inconsistent performance. The Board found Engineer A could permissibly participate in the public safety standards hearing to bring these concerns to regulatory attention.
Engineer A's obligation to bring good faith safety concerns about Company X's new consumer product to the attention of appropriate governmental authorities was not precluded by the fact that Company X had completed standard safety testing, recognizing that the completion of standard testing does not extinguish the obligation to report additional unique safety concerns that the standard testing did not capture.
After Company X completed standard safety testing and declined additional testing, through the post-employment period
Engineer A Current Case Standard Testing Non-Preclusion Recognition
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that Company X's completion of standard safety testing does not preclude the professional obligation to bring additional unique safety concerns — based on observed inconsistent product performance — to the attention of appropriate governmental authorities
Company X completed standard safety testing of the new consumer product, but Engineer A identified additional unique safety concerns based on inconsistent performance that fell outside the scope of the completed standard testing
Engineer A's recognition that standard safety testing compliance did not discharge the obligation to report unique safety concerns to governmental authorities for further review
Engineer A Employer Rejection Non-Acquiescence Escalation
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that Company X's rejection of the additional safety testing recommendation on cost and schedule grounds did not discharge the professional obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and to assess appropriate escalation pathways including eventual participation in government safety standards hearings.
After Company X rejected the recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, Engineer A did not acquiesce to the rejection as a final resolution of the safety concern, ultimately considering participation in government safety standards hearings one year after resignation.
Engineer A's subsequent resignation from Company X and consideration of participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, reflecting non-acquiescence to the employer's cost-driven rejection of safety recommendations.
Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the public safety standards hearing.
Later, Engineer A resigns from Company X.
Engineer A Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint at Government Hearing
Engineer A's safety concerns are based on observed performance inconsistencies during employment. Standard safety testing demonstrated compliance with acceptable parameters. Engineer A must ground any hearing testimony in factual observations rather than unverified concerns.
Engineer A is constrained from expressing technical opinions at the government public safety standards hearing that are not founded upon established facts and completed analysis — prohibiting disclosure of unverified concerns as if they were established professional findings, and requiring that testimony be grounded in the specific performance inconsistencies Engineer A actually observed rather than speculative extrapolations about consumer harm.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3 (objective and truthful professional manner); Section II.5.a (no false statements or misrepresentations)
During Engineer A's participation as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing
Engineer A Faithful Agent Internal Recommendation
Engineer A possessed the ethical reasoning capability to fulfill the faithful agent obligation to Company X by working within the company's standard safety testing process and making the safety recommendation through proper internal channels to Supervisor B before considering external escalation.
Engineer A fulfilled the faithful agent obligation by first recommending additional safety testing internally to Supervisor B, consistent with the principle of advising the client/employer before escalating externally.
Engineer A's internal recommendation to Supervisor B for additional safety testing, reflecting proper sequencing of faithful agent obligations before external escalation.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Internal Recommendation Fulfillment
Engineer A reported safety concerns and recommended additional testing to Supervisor B through proper internal channels during employment at Company X.
Engineer A fulfilled the faithful agent obligation to Company X by working within the company's standard safety testing process and making the safety testing recommendation through proper internal channels to Supervisor B, before the employer's rejection triggered the escalating public welfare obligations.
During the employment period at Company X, prior to the employer's rejection of the additional testing recommendation.
Engineer A Forensic Expert Objectivity at Government Safety Hearing
Forensic Expert Witness Objectivity Maintenance Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to testify at the government public safety standards hearing in an objective and truthful manner — independent of any former employer loyalty or personal interests — as a prerequisite condition for permissible participation
Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing and must testify objectively and truthfully as a condition of permissible participation
The BER's identification of objective and truthful testimony as the second of three prerequisite conditions for permissible participation in the government safety standards hearing
Engineer A Good Faith Belief Public Safety Reporting Permissibility Constraint
Engineer A holds a good faith belief that Company X's new consumer product raises unique safety concerns based on inconsistent performance, without confirmed incidents or specific demonstrative safety violations, and is considering whether to bring these concerns to governmental authorities
Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation Escalation Boundary Constraint
Engineer A's good faith belief that Company X's product raises public safety concerns for consumers permits — but does not mandate — bringing those concerns to the attention of appropriate governmental authorities, constrained by the requirement that the concerns be presented as good faith professional judgment rather than confirmed violations, and that the reporting be consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics
Post-employment period following resignation from Company X
Engineer A Good Faith Concern Epistemic Qualification Constraint at Hearing
Company X's standard safety testing demonstrated the product is within acceptable safety parameters. Engineer A's concerns are based on observed performance inconsistencies that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns, but no applicable standards exist against which a violation could be measured.
Engineer A is constrained from presenting safety concerns about Company X's new consumer product as confirmed violations or established safety failures at the government hearing, given that standard safety testing was completed and demonstrated compliance with acceptable safety parameters, and no applicable governmental or industry standards specifically address the product — requiring Engineer A to qualify testimony as professional judgment based on observed performance inconsistencies rather than as findings of regulatory non-compliance.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3 (objective and truthful professional manner); Section II.5.a (no false statements); BER Case 76-4 (fact-grounded reporting obligation)
Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety
Engineer A Internal Safety Recommendation to Supervisor B
Engineer A observed inconsistent product performance issues during and after Company X's standard safety testing process and recommended additional testing to Supervisor B.
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Safety Recommendation
Engineer A was obligated to proactively communicate identified safety concerns — specifically the observed inconsistent product performance issues raising unique safety concerns — to Supervisor B without waiting for formal requests or for harm to materialize, fulfilling the faithful agent duty while also acting in the public interest.
Upon identification of the inconsistent product performance issues, during the employment period at Company X.
Engineer A MedTech BER 08-10 Premature External Reporting Threat
Engineer A told the MedTech manager that if prompt measures were not taken to correct the infant respirator relief valve problem, Engineer A would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency. The Board found this threat ethically impermissible because internal escalation channels had not been exhausted.
Premature External Reporting Threat Prohibition Obligation
Engineer A at MedTech was obligated to refrain from threatening external regulatory reporting to the manager as a coercive tactic before exhausting internal escalation channels, recognizing that such a premature threat was ethically impermissible even though the underlying safety concern about the infant respirator relief valve was legitimate.
At the time Engineer A issued the external reporting threat to the non-engineer manager
Engineer A MedTech Premature External Reporting Threat Prohibition
Engineer A at MedTech threatened to report the infant respirator relief valve issue to a federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken, before exhausting internal escalation pathways
Engineer A (MedTech context, BER Case 08-10)
Graduated Internal Escalation Exhaustion Before External Reporting Threat Constraint
Engineer A at MedTech was constrained from threatening external regulatory reporting to the manager as a coercive tactic before exhausting internal escalation pathways — including determining what internal steps were being taken, exploring internal mechanisms for further recourse, and confirming that no meaningful action was being taken.
the Board concluded that it was not ethical for Engineer A to indicate that he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem
During the period of internal escalation at MedTech before external reporting consideration
Engineer A No Black and White Standard Contextual Calibration Constraint
The BER explicitly notes that there is no black and white standard applicable to these types of cases and that the Board's decision depends on specific facts and circumstances
Engineer A and professional ethics reviewing bodies are constrained from applying a single uniform standard to Engineer A's public safety reporting obligations, requiring instead that the nature, specificity, and form of the obligation be calibrated to the specific facts and circumstances — including the general rather than demonstrative nature of the safety concern, the absence of applicable standards, and the post-employment context.
There is no black and white standard that can be applied to these types of cases
Throughout the ethics review and Engineer A's decision-making process
the Board's decision in each of these situations depends on the specific facts and circumstances involved
Engineer A Non-Acquiescence After Company X Rejection
Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing due to potential cost and delay; Engineer A subsequently resigned from Company X.
After Company X rejected the recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, Engineer A was obligated to assess whether the identified safety concerns required escalation beyond the employer relationship to appropriate regulatory or public authorities, and to refrain from treating the employer's economic rejection as a final resolution of the safety concern.
Following Company X's rejection of the additional safety testing recommendation and continuing through the post-employment period.
Engineer A Non-Acquiescence After Company X Rejection Escalation Constraint
Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds. Engineer A subsequently resigned. The rejection does not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation to pursue appropriate escalation pathways when public safety concerns persist.
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
Engineer A's obligation of faithful agency to Company X — including deference to Company X's cost-driven rejection of additional safety testing — is constrained by the paramount obligation to public safety, establishing that Engineer A cannot treat Company X's rejection as a complete discharge of professional safety obligations when Engineer A continues to hold a good-faith belief that the product raises unique safety concerns for consumers.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 (hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare); Section II.4 (faithful agent obligations); BER Case 08-10 (graduated internal escalation before external reporting)
From the time Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing through Engineer A's resignation and subsequent consideration of hearing participation
Engineer A Objective Truthful Testimony Constraint
Engineer A's safety concerns are based on inconsistent product performance and not on any clear or demonstrative expressed safety concern, requiring that testimony accurately reflect this epistemic limitation
Good Faith Safety Concern Objective Testimony Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to testify in an objective and truthful manner at the government public safety standards hearing, prohibiting advocacy for a predetermined conclusion, overstatement of the certainty of safety concerns, or presentation of general performance inconsistencies as confirmed safety violations.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3, II.5; BER case analysis
Throughout the government public safety standards hearing
Engineer A One-Year Temporal Attenuation Confidentiality Assessment
Engineer A resigned from Company X and one year later is considering participating as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing. The one-year interval is relevant to assessing whether specific confidential information from employment remains protected.
One-Year Post-Employment Temporal Attenuation of Confidentiality Constraint
Engineer A must assess whether the one-year interval since resignation from Company X has sufficiently attenuated the confidentiality obligations attached to specific categories of information — distinguishing between information that remains competitively sensitive or proprietary and information whose public safety relevance now outweighs residual confidentiality interests — before determining the permissible scope of testimony at the government hearing.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4 (faithful agent obligations); post-employment confidentiality norms; temporal proximity analysis from BER case precedent
One year after Engineer A's resignation from Company X, at the time of considering participation in the government public safety standards hearing
One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing
Engineer A One Year Post-Employment Temporal Attenuation Confidentiality Constraint
Engineer A resigned from Company X approximately one year before the government agency's public safety standards hearing and is considering whether to participate as a witness
The passage of approximately one year between Engineer A's resignation from Company X and Engineer A's consideration of participation in the government public safety standards hearing is a relevant but not dispositive factor in assessing the scope of residual confidentiality obligations — temporal distance may attenuate but does not eliminate post-employment confidentiality duties regarding Company X's proprietary product information.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.4; BER case analysis
One year post-resignation from Company X, at the time of hearing participation consideration
One year after resigning from Company X, Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the government agency's public safety standards hearing
Engineer A Post-Employment Confidentiality Boundary at Government Hearing
Engineer A resigned from Company X one year before a government agency announced a public safety standards hearing covering Company X's new consumer product. Engineer A possesses confidential internal knowledge of safety concerns and Company X's rejection of additional testing recommendations.
Engineer A is constrained from disclosing Company X's proprietary product data, internal deliberations, rejected safety recommendations, and confidential manufacturing information when participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, even though Engineer A possesses this information from prior employment and it may be relevant to the hearing's subject matter.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4 (faithful agent and trustee obligations surviving employment); post-employment confidentiality norms; BER Case 76-4 (balancing confidentiality against public safety reporting)
At and following the government public safety standards hearing, one year after Engineer A's resignation from Company X
Engineer A Post-Employment Hearing Participation Capability
Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Participation Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize the professional obligation to participate as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, given specialized knowledge of safety concerns about the new consumer product directly relevant to the hearing, one year after resigning from Company X.
One year after resigning from Company X, Engineer A considered participating as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing covering the new consumer product, possessing specialized knowledge of safety concerns not addressed by existing standards.
Engineer A's consideration of participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing covering the product category for which Engineer A had identified unique safety concerns during employment.
One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors.
Engineer A Post-Employment Hearing Participation Consideration
One year after resignation, the relevant government agency announced a public safety standards hearing covering new consumer products including Company X's product; Engineer A is considering participating as a witness.
Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Participation Obligation
One year after resigning from Company X, Engineer A is obligated to participate as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing covering the product category for which Engineer A identified unique safety concerns, sharing safety observations in a manner that informs regulatory decision-making without disclosing Company X's proprietary or confidential information.
Upon announcement of the government public safety standards hearing, one year after Engineer A's resignation from Company X.
Engineer A Post-Employment Hearing Participation Technical Competence Self-Assessment
AI Tool Competence Assessment Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to self-assess whether they hold the technical competence required to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which testimony will be offered at the government public safety standards hearing — as a prerequisite condition for permissible participation
Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at a government public safety standards hearing and must assess whether they possess the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the relevant area
The BER's identification of technical competence as the first of three prerequisite conditions for permissible participation in the government safety standards hearing
Engineer A Post-Employment Public Safety Standards Witness
{'prior_employer': 'Company X', 'hearing_subject': 'New consumer product safety standards including Company X product', 'participation_status': 'Considering participation'}
One year after resigning from Company X, Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing covering the new consumer product category, bringing insider technical knowledge of the product's safety concerns and the employer's rejection of additional testing.
{'type': 'former_employee', 'target': 'Company X'}
{'type': 'potential_witness_before', 'target': 'Government Safety Standards Hearing Authority'}
the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
Engineer A's employment relationship with Company X
Not terminated within the facts presented
Engineer A Post-Employment Witness Participation Consideration
From the government agency's announcement of the public safety standard hearing through Engineer A's decision about participation
One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products, including the new product developed by Company X and ones developed by its competitors
Post-Employment Safety Concern Witness Participation State
Engineer A's consideration of participating as a witness at the government agency's public safety standards hearing
Engineer A's decision to participate or not participate; conclusion of the hearing
Government agency announces public safety standard hearing one year after Engineer A's resignation; Engineer A considers participating as a witness
Engineer A Proprietary Information Boundary Calibration in Testimony
Engineer A possessed the capability to calibrate post-employment testimony at the government public safety standards hearing to share safety-relevant information in the public interest while refraining from disclosing proprietary or confidential information belonging to Company X.
If Engineer A participates as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, Engineer A must calibrate testimony to share safety-relevant observations while honoring residual confidentiality obligations to former employer Company X.
Engineer A's need to navigate the boundary between sharing safety concerns about inconsistent product performance — which serves the public interest — and protecting Company X's proprietary technical processes and confidential business information when testifying at the government hearing.
Engineer A Proprietary Information Boundary in Hearing Testimony
Engineer A's potential testimony at the government hearing must balance the public welfare obligation to share safety knowledge against the continuing confidentiality obligation owed to former employer Company X.
If Engineer A participates as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, Engineer A is obligated to calibrate testimony to share safety-relevant observations and professional judgments without disclosing Company X's proprietary technical processes, trade secrets, or confidential business information, drawing a principled distinction between safety observations (disclosable) and proprietary technical details (protected).
During and in preparation for participation in the government public safety standards hearing.
Engineer A Public Interest Testimony Obligation Recognition
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that specialized knowledge of safety concerns about the new consumer product — directly relevant to the government public safety standards hearing — created a professional obligation to escalate those concerns to the public regulatory authority through hearing participation, transcending the former employment relationship.
One year after resigning from Company X, Engineer A recognized that specialized knowledge of unique safety concerns about the new consumer product created a professional obligation to participate in the government public safety standards hearing covering that product category.
Engineer A's consideration of participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing, reflecting recognition that the public interest in safety information outweighs residual loyalty to former employer Company X.
Engineer A Public Interest Testimony Obligation at Government Hearing
The government agency announced a public safety standards hearing covering the product category for which Engineer A identified unique safety concerns during employment at Company X.
Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Hearing Participation
Engineer A possesses specialized knowledge of safety concerns about the new consumer product that is directly relevant to the government safety standards hearing, and is obligated to bring those concerns forward at the hearing to ensure that the regulatory body has complete and accurate technical information for its standards-setting decision.
Upon announcement of the government public safety standards hearing and during the hearing itself.
Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality at Hearing
Engineer A possesses knowledge of safety concerns about a consumer product that is the subject of a government public safety standards hearing. The tension between post-employment confidentiality obligations and the paramount public safety duty must be resolved in favor of public safety to the minimum extent necessary.
Public Safety Paramount Over Confidentiality Constraint
Engineer A's post-employment confidentiality obligations to Company X are constrained by the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare — establishing that if Engineer A's testimony at the government public safety standards hearing is necessary to prevent a clear risk to consumer safety, the public safety obligation may override residual confidentiality duties, but only to the extent necessary to address the identified safety risk and not as a general license to disclose all confidential Company X information.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1 (hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare); BER Case 76-4 (public safety paramount over confidentiality); NSPE Code Section II.4 (faithful agent obligations)
Because of the potential cost and the delay that may result due to additional testing, Company X rejects Engineer A's recommendation
Engineer A Regulatory Gap Escalation Recognition
No national product safety standards yet address the new consumer product or its potential impact on consumer safety; the government hearing represents the regulatory body's effort to develop such standards.
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that the absence of national or industry standards specifically addressing the new consumer product heightens rather than diminishes the professional obligation to share safety concerns with the government regulatory body conducting the public safety standards hearing, because the regulatory gap means Engineer A's specialized knowledge may be the only available mechanism for informing public safety decision-making in this domain.
Current national product safety standards do not yet address the new product or its potential impact on consumer safety.
Upon announcement of the government public safety standards hearing and throughout the decision-making process about participation.
Currently, there are no governmental or industry standards relating to this new consumer product other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures.
One year later, the relevant government agency announces a public safety standard hearing in connection with a series of new consumer products.
Engineer A Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Recognition
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the absence of national or industry standards specifically addressing the new consumer product heightened rather than diminished the professional obligation to escalate identified safety concerns about inconsistent product performance.
Engineer A identified unique safety concerns about a new consumer product in a regulatory gap context where no applicable national standards existed, and pursued escalation through internal recommendation and post-employment hearing participation.
Recognition that no governmental or industry standards existed for the new consumer product, and that this regulatory gap amplified the duty to recommend additional safety testing and, after employer rejection, to consider participation in government safety standards hearings.
Engineer A Regulatory Standards Vacuum Testimony Framing Constraint
No governmental or industry standards relating to the new consumer product exist other than general and standard product safety-testing policies and procedures. The government agency is holding a hearing specifically to develop new standards for this category of products.
Regulatory Standards Vacuum Heightened Escalation Permissibility Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from framing testimony at the government public safety standards hearing as reporting violations of non-existent standards, and must instead frame participation as professional engineering input contributing to the development of new standards — clearly disclosing the absence of applicable product-specific standards and the basis for the professional safety concern.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a (objective and truthful); NSPE Code Section I.1 (hold paramount public health, safety, and welfare); absence of applicable governmental or industry standards for the new consumer product
Engineer A Residual Safety Concern Post-Testing
From Engineer A's observation of inconsistent performance issues during/after standard safety testing through Engineer A's resignation and beyond
Completed Safety Testing with Residual Concern State
Engineer A's professional assessment of the new consumer product's safety
Not terminated within the facts presented; concern persists through the standards hearing consideration
Engineer A recommends to Supervisor B that Company X conduct a new series of tests to determine whether the new consumer product will be operated safely by consumers
Engineer A observes inconsistent product performance issues that in their opinion raise unique safety concerns after standard safety testing is completed
Engineer A Standard Testing Non-Preclusion Recognition
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the new consumer product's demonstrated compliance with standard safety testing parameters did not preclude the professional obligation to report additional unique safety concerns arising from observed inconsistent product performance.
Engineer A observed inconsistent performance issues after standard safety testing was completed and demonstrated compliance, and correctly identified that this did not discharge the obligation to recommend further testing.
Engineer A's recommendation for a new series of tests despite the product having passed standard safety testing, reflecting understanding that standard testing compliance does not foreclose additional safety inquiry when unique concerns are observed.
During and following the company's standard safety testing process (which has been completed and has demonstrated that the new consumer product is within acceptable safety parameters), Engineer A observes what Engineer A believes are inconsistent product performance issues that in Engineer A's opinion raise unique safety concerns.
Engineer A Standard Testing Non-Preclusion of Additional Safety Reporting
Company X completed standard safety testing demonstrating the product was within acceptable safety parameters; Engineer A nonetheless identified inconsistent performance issues raising unique safety concerns beyond the scope of the completed testing.
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that Company X's completion of standard safety testing — and the product's demonstrated compliance with acceptable safety parameters — did not preclude or extinguish the obligation to report the additional, unique safety concerns that the standard testing did not capture, specifically the inconsistent product performance issues identified through Engineer A's specialized engineering competence.
During and following the completion of Company X's standard safety testing process.
Engineer A Technical Competence Prerequisite for Hearing Participation
Engineer A is considering participating as a witness at a government agency public safety standards hearing covering the type of product developed by Company X, requiring self-assessment of domain-specific competence
Technical Competence Prerequisite for Expert Hearing Participation Constraint
Engineer A may participate as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing only if Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the specific area in which Engineer A is testifying, prohibiting participation as an engineering expert in technical domains outside Engineer A's demonstrated competence.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2; BER case analysis
Prior to and throughout the government public safety standards hearing
Engineer A first reporting respirator issue to manager (BER 08-10) before Engineer A learning no action had been taken (BER 08-10)
Engineer A learning no action had been taken (BER 08-10) before Engineer A urging manager again and threatening external report (BER 08-10)
Engineer A observing inconsistent performance issues before Engineer A recommending additional testing to Supervisor B
Engineer A recommending additional testing before Company X rejecting the recommendation
Engineer A's resignation before government agency announcing public safety standards hearing
{'employer': 'MedTech', 'role_type': 'Engineering colleague'}
Company colleague of Engineer A at MedTech who asked Engineer A to evaluate the infant respirator design; later informed Engineer A that no corrective action had been taken by management.
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer'}
Engineer B, a company colleague of Engineer A, asked Engineer A to evaluate a respirator designed by MedTech for infant use
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Environmental/pollution control consulting'}
Performed consulting engineering services for XYZ Corporation to evaluate whether plant discharge met environmental standards; concluded discharge would lower water quality below established standards; verbally advised client of findings; was terminated and instructed not to produce a written report; subsequently learned of a public hearing where the corporation presented contrary data, triggering his obligation to report findings to the authority.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'State Pollution Control Authority'}
the corporation terminated the contract with Engineer Doe with full payment for services performed and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report
Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Post-Contract Reporting Persistence
Discharged Engineer Post-Termination Reporting Persistence Capability
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that XYZ Corporation's termination of the contract and instruction not to render a written report did not extinguish the professional obligation to report adverse environmental findings to the State Pollution Control Authority.
After XYZ Corporation terminated the contract upon receiving adverse verbal findings and instructed Engineer Doe not to render a written report, Engineer Doe faced the obligation to report adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority despite the terminated client relationship.
Engineer Doe's recognition that the terminated client relationship did not discharge the obligation to report findings that contradicted the corporation's public hearing testimony, and the obligation to report to the State Pollution Control Authority.
Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer: Performed consulting engineering services for XYZ Corporation to evaluate whether plant discharge met environmental standards; concluded discharge did not meet standards; XYZ Corporation terminated the contract and instructed not to render a written report.
Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Post-Termination Public Hearing Reporting
Engineer Doe concluded that XYZ Corporation's plant discharge would lower water quality below established standards, verbally advised the corporation, had his contract terminated with full payment and instructions not to render a written report, then learned the corporation presented contradictory data at a public hearing. The Board found Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority.
Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated, upon learning that XYZ Corporation had presented data at the public hearing contradicting his adverse verbal findings about discharge standards, to report his technical findings to the State Pollution Control Authority, notwithstanding the termination of his contract and the corporation's instruction not to render a written report.
Upon learning that XYZ Corporation had presented contradictory data at the public hearing
The NSPE Code requires that his duty to the public to be paramount.
Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Post-Termination Reporting Persistence
Engineer Doe possessed the capability to recognize that the termination of his contract with XYZ Corporation and the instruction not to render a written report did not extinguish the professional obligation to report adverse findings to the State Pollution Control Authority upon learning that the corporation had presented contradictory data at the public hearing
Engineer Doe's contract was terminated after he verbally advised XYZ Corporation of adverse findings; upon learning the corporation presented contradictory data at a public hearing, he was obligated to report his findings to the authority
The BER's conclusion that Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing, despite contract termination and client instruction to the contrary
Engineer Doe (BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer)
Engineer Doe Post-Termination Public Hearing Reporting Constraint
Engineer Doe concluded that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below established standards, was terminated and instructed not to report, then learned the corporation presented contradictory data at a public hearing
Client-Suppressed Findings Public Hearing Correction Constraint
Engineer Doe was constrained by the paramount public safety obligation to report his findings to the State Pollution Control Authority upon learning that XYZ Corporation had presented contradictory data at the public hearing, notwithstanding the contract termination and client instruction not to render a written report.
upon learning of the hearing, Engineer Doe was squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare
Upon learning of the public hearing and XYZ Corporation's contradictory data presentation
Engineer Doe completing studies (BER 76-4) before Engineer Doe completing written report (BER 76-4)
Engineer Doe verbally advising XYZ Corporation (BER 76-4) before XYZ Corporation terminating contract with Engineer Doe (BER 76-4)
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Engineer A in evaluating obligations after resignation and when considering hearing participation
Governs Engineer A's duty to escalate public safety concerns beyond Company X when the company fails to act on safety recommendations, including the scope of continuing obligations after resignation and the appropriateness of participating in the government standards hearing
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from NSPE Code)
Engineer A should have sought to determine what internal steps were being taken to address the concerns.
if after making the additional inquiries, Engineer A determined that no meaningful action was being taken to address the issue, Engineer A should have explored internal mechanisms within MedTech to seek further recourse regarding this issue.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's conduct and obligations in both BER Case 08-10 and the present case
Governs the graduated internal-then-external escalation process Engineer A must follow when a company fails to act on safety concerns, including exhausting internal mechanisms before pursuing external regulatory reporting
Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
Engineer A following Company X's rejection of additional testing recommendation
Governs Engineer A's obligations after Company X rejects the recommendation for additional safety testing, including documentation duties and determination of whether the refusal creates a public safety threat requiring escalation
Escalate with External Reporting Threat (Action 7 - BER 08-10) → Systemic pressure on organizations to address safety concerns before public escalation
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked By Engineer A Internal Recommendation
Internal safety testing recommendation to Supervisor B
Engineer A acted as a faithful agent to Company X by working within the company's standard safety testing process and making the safety testing recommendation through proper internal channels to Supervisor B, rather than immediately escalating externally
Engineer A fulfilled the faithful agent obligation by first pursuing internal resolution through proper channels before considering external action — the recommendation to Supervisor B represents the appropriate first step in the escalation sequence
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
The faithful agent obligation was satisfied by internal recommendation; when the employer rejected the recommendation and the safety concern remained unaddressed, the public welfare obligation became the dominant consideration
Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting Invoked Current Case
Engineer A's general good-faith belief that Company X's product raises unique safety concerns — even without confirmed incidents, specific demonstrative findings, or applicable regulatory standards — is sufficient to trigger an obligation to bring those concerns to appropriate governmental authorities for further review and investigation
The good faith belief threshold is lower than the confirmed findings threshold — Engineer A need not have confirmed safety failures to be obligated to report; a professionally grounded good-faith belief is sufficient
Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting
The good faith belief threshold resolves the tension between the absence of confirmed incidents (which might suggest no reporting obligation) and the public welfare paramount obligation (which requires proactive protection) by establishing that professional judgment, not confirmed harm, is the trigger
Government Agency Public Safety Standard Hearing
Public Safety Standard Hearing — New Consumer Products
Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework
Engineer A in evaluating whether to participate as a witness
The formal regulatory proceeding at which Engineer A is considering testifying, representing the institutional mechanism through which public safety standards for the new product class will be established
Announced one year after Engineer A's resignation
{'authority_type': 'Federal or national product safety regulatory agency', 'proceeding_type': 'Public safety standard-setting hearing', 'scope': 'New consumer products including Company X product and competitor products'}
The relevant government agency announces and conducts a public safety standard hearing covering new consumer products including Company X's product, serving as the public regulatory forum at which Engineer A is considering testifying.
{'type': 'potential_recipient_of_testimony_from', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
{'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Company X'}
Loyalty Invoked By Company X Employer Relationship
Engineer A's post-employment testimony decision
Engineer A's safety testing recommendation
Engineer A's employment relationship with Company X creates a duty of loyalty that must be weighed against the public welfare obligation when deciding whether to recommend additional testing and whether to testify at the regulatory hearing
The loyalty obligation to Company X is a legitimate but subordinate consideration — it does not prevent Engineer A from making safety recommendations internally, and does not bar post-employment testimony at a government regulatory hearing, though it may constrain the scope of proprietary information Engineer A discloses
Loyalty yields to public welfare when the conflict is between commercial interests and consumer safety, but continues to constrain the scope of proprietary disclosure in post-employment testimony
MedTech Safety-Rejecting Manufacturing Employer BER 08-10
{'type': 'Private medical equipment manufacturer', 'product': 'Infant respirators'}
Manufactured infant respirators; received Engineer A's safety concern report through a non-engineer manager; failed to take corrective action for over a month despite the identified relief valve defect; indicated the matter was still being reviewed by a design team when pressed by Engineer A.
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 08-10 MedTech Respirator Safety Engineer'}
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 08-10 MedTech Colleague'}
Engineer A, an experienced professional engineer, was employed by MedTech, a company that manufactured medical equipment
the manager indicated that the matter was still being looked into by a design team
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities for further review, investigation, and analysis, consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations
Cited as the primary normative authority establishing the engineer's paramount duty to public health, safety, and welfare, and governing Engineer A's obligations regarding the public safety standards hearing and potential regulatory reporting
Engineer A in evaluating professional obligations throughout the case
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations when observing safety concerns, recommending additional testing, and considering participation in the public safety standards hearing
National Product Safety Standards (General)
Relevant national standards bodies and government agencies
Engineer A and Company X in assessing the regulatory environment for the new product
Referenced as the existing regulatory baseline that does not yet cover the new consumer product, establishing the regulatory gap that motivates both Engineer A's safety concerns and the government agency's public safety standards hearing
Current at time of case (gap noted: does not yet address the new product)
Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection Invoked BER 08-10 MedTech
Graduated Internal Escalation Before External Reporting Obligation
Engineer A at MedTech identified a specific relief valve placement defect and recommended corrective action; when the manager failed to act for a month and hundreds of units were on the market, Engineer A's professional obligation required further escalation beyond the initial report
The employer's failure to act on a specific, identified safety concern does not discharge the engineer's obligation — the engineer must continue escalating internally before threatening external reporting
Board held that Engineer A's obligation was not discharged by the employer's inaction, but that the appropriate response was further internal escalation rather than immediate external reporting threats — the non-acquiescence obligation is real but must be pursued through graduated internal channels first
Engineer A again urged the manager to take immediate action
When the manager indicated that the matter was still being looked into by a design team, Engineer A indicated that if prompt measures were not taken to correct the problem, he would be compelled to report the matter to an appropriate federal regulatory agency
Non-Acquiescence to Employer Safety Testing Rejection Invoked By Engineer A Resignation
Company X rejection of additional safety testing recommendation
When Company X rejected Engineer A's recommendation for additional safety testing on cost and schedule grounds, Engineer A did not acquiesce in the rejection as a professional endorsement of safety adequacy, ultimately resigning from the company
Engineer A's resignation represents a professional response to the irreconcilable conflict between the employer's commercial decision and Engineer A's professional judgment about safety adequacy — resignation preserved Engineer A's professional integrity without requiring continued participation in a product development process Engineer A believed was inadequately safe
Engineer A resolved the tension by resigning rather than either acquiescing silently or taking immediate external action, preserving both professional integrity and the option to contribute to regulatory proceedings later
Novel Consumer Product Regulatory Standards Vacuum
From product development through the announcement of the government agency's public safety standard hearing; partially resolved by the hearing announcement
Competing companies developing similar products
Regulatory Standards Vacuum for Novel Product State
The new consumer product developed by Company X and its regulatory environment
Government agency announces public safety standard hearing — standards development process initiated but not yet concluded
Development of a new consumer product for which no national, governmental, or industry-specific safety standards exist
Objectivity Invoked Engineer A Current Case Standards Hearing Testimony
The Board conditions Engineer A's permissible participation in the government safety standards hearing on the requirement that Engineer A testify in an objective and truthful manner — objectivity is a prerequisite to ethically permissible post-employment testimony
Objectivity in testimony requires that Engineer A present technical findings and professional judgments without bias toward former employer interests, personal grievances, or advocacy positions — the testimony must be grounded in professional assessment
Objectivity is not in tension with post-employment testimony but is a condition of its ethical permissibility — subjective or advocacy-driven testimony would convert permissible public interest participation into an ethical violation
the NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying; (2) Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked By Engineer A After Company X Rejection
Company X rejection of additional safety testing
Engineer A's resignation and subsequent regulatory participation decision
After Company X rejected Engineer A's safety testing recommendation, Engineer A was required to critically assess whether the employer's refusal — combined with the nature, probability, and severity of the identified consumer safety risk — triggered an obligation to escalate concerns to regulatory authorities or take other protective action
The employer's rejection of the safety recommendation did not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation — it triggered a further assessment obligation that Engineer A appears to have resolved through resignation and subsequent consideration of regulatory testimony
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
Engineer A's resignation and consideration of regulatory testimony represent the outcome of the post-rejection escalation assessment, with regulatory participation identified as the appropriate further protective action
Post-Employment Public Safety Testimony Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
Government public safety standards hearing
Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
Engineer A's professional obligation to share safety observations about the new consumer product at the government standards hearing survives resignation from Company X, because the public safety duty is status-based rather than employment-based
Engineer A not only may but should participate in the standards hearing, providing truthful and objective testimony about observed inconsistent performance issues, while exercising judgment about what proprietary information is necessary to disclose versus what can be withheld consistent with public safety goals
The post-employment testimony obligation is assessed as ethically permissible and required because the hearing is a government regulatory proceeding aimed at public protection, not an adversarial proceeding against Company X, and Engineer A's testimony serves the public rather than a competitor
Present Case Client Safety Recommendation Rejection by Company X
From Company X's rejection of additional testing through Engineer A's resignation
Engineer A advised Company X of this fact
Company X declined to pursue additional internal testing of the new product, citing the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards as justification
Present Case Company X Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation
From Engineer A's observation of inconsistent product performance through Engineer A's resignation and consideration of hearing participation
Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation State
Engineer A's safety concerns about Company X's new product based on performance inconsistencies
Not resolved — Engineer A resigned and is considering participation in public safety standards hearing
Engineer A observed inconsistent performance by Company X's new product and formed a professional judgment that unique safety concerns may require additional study, in the absence of applicable governmental or industry standards
Present Case Competing Duties Between Confidentiality and Public Safety Reporting
From Engineer A's resignation through the Board's determination of permissibility conditions for hearing participation
Engineer A's tension between confidentiality obligations to Company X and public safety reporting obligations
Board's three-condition framework establishing how both obligations can be simultaneously honored
If, in fact, Engineer A has a good faith belief that Company X or other industry products raise public safety concerns for consumers, Engineer A should bring this to the attention of the appropriate governmental agency or authorities
Engineer A was asked to testify at a public safety standards hearing on matters related to Company X's product, while remaining bound by confidentiality obligations from prior employment
Present Case Post-Employment Expert Witness Participation Consideration
From Engineer A's resignation through the Board's analysis of permissibility conditions
Engineer A, who has since resigned from Company X, has been asked to participate as a witness at a public safety standards hearing
Engineer A's consideration of participation as witness at public safety standards hearing after resigning from Company X
Not resolved — Board determined participation is permissible subject to three conditions
the NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence... (2) Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner; and (3) Engineer A does not disclose any information regarding Company X's product that will violate any confidentiality agreements with Company X
Engineer A was asked to participate as a witness at a public safety standards hearing after resigning from Company X, where the hearing subject matter relates to Engineer A's prior safety concerns
Present Case Regulatory Standards Vacuum for Company X Novel Product
From product development through the public safety standards hearing
Absence of applicable governmental or industry safety standards for Company X's new product
Potentially resolved by the public safety standards hearing at which Engineer A is asked to participate
Company X developed a new product for which no governmental or industry-specific safety standards existed, leaving safety determination entirely to professional judgment
New consumer product risk identification
Safety concern communication to Supervisor B
Engineer A proactively communicated identified safety concerns to Supervisor B without waiting for formal requests or for harm to materialize, fulfilling the obligation to disclose risks to relevant parties before consumers are exposed to the potentially unsafe product
Proactive risk disclosure required Engineer A to surface the inconsistent performance observations and recommend additional testing even though standard testing had been completed and deemed adequate — the engineer's independent professional judgment triggered the disclosure obligation
Proactive disclosure obligation was fulfilled internally; the subsequent employer rejection created a residual obligation to consider further disclosure through regulatory channels
Professional Competence In Risk Assessment Invoked By Engineer A Safety Observation
Standard safety testing adequacy assessment
Engineer A applied specialized engineering competence to identify inconsistent product performance issues that standard safety testing did not capture, forming a professional judgment that the new product raised unique safety concerns warranting additional investigation
Engineer A's professional competence in product safety engineering creates both the capacity and the obligation to identify risks that formal testing protocols may miss, and to act on that identification through recommendations and regulatory participation
Professional Competence in Risk Assessment
Professional competence-based safety judgment is not overridden by employer rejection — the engineer's professional assessment remains valid regardless of the employer's commercial decision
Professional Competence Invoked Engineer A Current Case Testimony Prerequisite
The Board conditions Engineer A's permissible participation in the government safety standards hearing on Engineer A possessing the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which he is testifying — competence is a prerequisite to ethically permissible expert participation
Engineers may not provide expert testimony in areas outside their competence — the public interest served by testimony is undermined rather than advanced when the testifying engineer lacks the technical expertise to provide reliable professional judgment in the relevant domain
Competence is a threshold condition, not a balancing factor — if Engineer A lacks competence in the relevant area, participation is not ethically permissible regardless of the public welfare motivation
the NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying
Engineer A in forming and articulating the safety recommendation
Grounds Engineer A's professional judgment that the observed inconsistent product performance issues raise unique safety concerns not captured by the completed standard testing, establishing the basis for the recommendation for additional testing
Professional Competence Standard for Expert Testimony
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in establishing conditions for Engineer A's ethical hearing participation
Applied as one of the three conditions for ethical participation in the public safety standards hearing: Engineer A must possess technical competence in the area in which he is testifying
New consumer product category safety standards development
Engineer A possesses specialized knowledge of safety concerns about the new consumer product that is directly relevant to the government safety standards hearing, creating an obligation to participate as a witness and provide truthful, objective testimony to inform the regulatory standard-setting process
The regulatory hearing is precisely the forum in which Engineer A's professional observations about inconsistent product performance and unique safety concerns should be heard — participation serves the public interest and is grounded in Engineer A's established professional assessment
Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation
The public interest testimony obligation is assessed as overriding residual loyalty to former employer when the forum is a government regulatory proceeding aimed at establishing protective standards for the public
Public Safety Hearing Announced (Event 4) → Consider Testifying at Public Hearing (Action 4) → Engineer A Faces Testimony Decision (Event 5)
Public Safety at Risk from Unresolved Consumer Product Concern
From Engineer A's identification of safety concerns through the standards hearing process
Consumers and general public potentially exposed to safety risks from the new consumer product given unresolved performance inconsistencies
Adoption of applicable safety standards; additional testing resolving the concern; product withdrawal
Engineer A's observation of inconsistent product performance issues raising unique safety concerns not addressed by completed testing or existing standards
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked BER 76-4 Engineer Doe Pollution Reporting
Engineer Doe, having verbally advised XYZ Corporation of findings that discharge would violate environmental standards, learned of a public hearing at which the corporation presented contrary data — the Board held Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority, because his duty to the public was paramount
When a client suppresses findings and presents contrary data to a regulatory authority, the engineer's paramount duty to the public requires reporting confirmed technical findings to the authority, overriding client confidentiality and loyalty obligations
The NSPE Code requires that his duty to the public to be paramount. In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
Board held that public welfare paramount overrides client confidentiality when the client actively misrepresents technical findings to a regulatory authority in a public health context
In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety
in concluding that Engineer Doe had an ethical obligation to report his findings to the authority upon learning of the hearing
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Post-Employment Testimony Consideration
New consumer product category regulatory standard-setting
One year after resignation, Engineer A considers participating as a witness at the government public safety standards hearing to ensure that regulatory authorities have the benefit of Engineer A's professional observations about the product's safety concerns
The public welfare obligation persists after employment ends — Engineer A's professional knowledge of safety concerns about the product category is precisely the kind of information that the regulatory hearing process needs to establish adequate protective standards
Post-employment public welfare obligation to contribute safety knowledge to regulatory process is assessed as overriding any residual loyalty to former employer, subject to constraints on disclosure of genuinely proprietary information
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Safety Concern Identification
New consumer product safety testing decision
Engineer A identified inconsistent product performance issues that standard safety testing did not capture and recommended additional testing to protect consumers who would use the new product
Public welfare requires Engineer A to act on professional observations of safety concerns even when standard testing has been completed and deemed adequate by the employer, because the engineer's specialized judgment identifies risks that formal testing protocols did not address
Engineer A prioritized public welfare by making the recommendation despite cost and schedule implications to Company X, and ultimately resigned rather than acquiesce in the unaddressed safety concern
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Engineer A Current Case Testimony Decision
Consumer product safety standards development
Engineer A's decision to participate in the government public safety standards hearing is grounded in the paramount obligation to protect public welfare by contributing specialized technical knowledge to the standards-development process for a product category with no existing regulatory guidance
Public welfare paramount requires that engineers with relevant technical knowledge participate in governmental safety standards processes, even post-employment, when they hold good-faith beliefs about product safety concerns affecting consumers
Board held that participation is permissible provided competence, objectivity, and confidentiality conditions are met — public welfare obligation is not absolute but is conditioned on these constraints
the NSPE Code requires that his duty to the public to be paramount
Would it be ethical for Engineer A to participate as a witness at the public safety standard hearings?
Did Engineer A have an ethical obligation to report safety concerns to a governmental authority or the public immediately after Company X rejected the recommendation for additional testing, rather than waiting until a public hearing was announced one year later?
Does the one-year gap between Engineer A's resignation and the public safety hearing affect the reliability or ethical weight of Engineer A's testimony, given that product designs, testing data, and safety conditions may have changed in the interim?
Was Company X's rejection of additional safety testing itself an ethical violation, given that the product operates in a regulatory standards vacuum and the safety concerns were raised by a qualified engineer based on observed performance inconsistencies?
To what extent does Engineer A's status as a private citizen rather than a retained expert witness change the ethical analysis of participation in the public safety standards hearing, particularly regarding objectivity and the appearance of personal grievance against a former employer?
Does the principle of Confidentiality in the post-employment testimony context conflict with the principle of Public Welfare Paramount when Engineer A possesses non-public safety information about Company X's product that could be material to the government hearing but is potentially covered by a confidentiality agreement?
Does the principle of Loyal and Faithful Agent Obligation within ethical limits conflict with the principle of Proactive Risk Disclosure when Company X has completed standard safety testing that passed, yet Engineer A's professional judgment identifies residual safety concerns that the completed testing did not resolve?
Does the Good Faith Safety Concern Threshold for External Reporting conflict with the principle of Professional Competence in Risk Assessment when Engineer A's safety concerns are based on observed performance inconsistencies rather than a confirmed safety failure, raising the question of whether a good faith belief alone is a sufficient epistemic basis for public testimony that could harm Company X's commercial interests?
Does the Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation conflict with the principle of Employer Reasonableness in an Absent-Standards Context, given that Company X's rejection of additional testing may have been commercially reasonable precisely because no applicable standards existed to define what additional testing was required?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A have a categorical duty to testify at the public safety standards hearing regardless of personal risk or inconvenience, given that the NSPE Code imposes an affirmative obligation to hold public safety paramount and to notify authorities when engineering judgment is overruled in ways that may endanger the public?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the aggregate public safety benefit of Engineer A's testimony at the hearing — potentially shaping new safety standards for an entire product category — outweigh the harms of possible confidentiality breaches, reputational damage to Company X, and the epistemic uncertainty inherent in Engineer A's unverified safety concerns?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A demonstrate the professional virtues of courage, integrity, and practical wisdom by choosing to testify within the Board's three stated conditions — technical competence, objectivity, and confidentiality compliance — rather than either remaining silent out of loyalty to a former employer or disclosing confidential details out of zeal for public safety?
From a deontological perspective, does the absence of applicable governmental or industry safety standards for Company X's new product heighten rather than diminish Engineer A's duty to testify, because the regulatory vacuum means the public safety hearing is the primary institutional mechanism through which Engineer A's professional judgment can be converted into protective standards?
If Engineer A had not resigned from Company X but were still employed there at the time of the public safety standards hearing, would the ethical calculus for participation as a witness change materially — particularly regarding the tension between the faithful agent obligation to an active employer and the public safety testimony obligation — and would the Board's three conditions be sufficient to resolve that tension?
If Engineer A had escalated safety concerns directly to the relevant government agency immediately after Company X rejected the additional testing recommendation — rather than waiting until the public hearing one year later — would that earlier disclosure have been ethically required, ethically permissible, or premature given that no imminent harm had yet materialized and no regulatory standards existed at that time?
Drawing on the BER 76-4 precedent involving Engineer Doe, if Engineer A's safety concerns had been based on a confirmed, documented violation of an existing standard rather than a good-faith belief about inconsistent performance in a regulatory vacuum, would the confidentiality constraint under Code Section III.4 have been entirely displaced by the public danger exception, and would Engineer A have faced an unambiguous obligation — not merely a permission — to testify?
If Engineer A's testimony at the public safety standards hearing were to inadvertently reveal proprietary details about Company X's product design — even without intent to breach confidentiality — would the resulting harm to Company X's competitive position retroactively render Engineer A's participation unethical, or does the public safety imperative insulate Engineer A from that ethical liability provided the Board's three conditions were met in good faith?
Recommend Additional Safety Testing (Action 1) → Reject Additional Testing Recommendation (Action 2) → Additional Testing Rejected (Event 2)
Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation Invoked In Current Case
The absence of governmental or industry standards for Company X's new consumer product creates a regulatory gap that heightens rather than diminishes Engineer A's professional responsibility to bring safety concerns to appropriate governmental authorities for further review and investigation
When no standards exist to guide product safety evaluation, the engineer's obligation to escalate good-faith safety concerns to governmental authorities is not diminished by the absence of standards — rather, the regulatory gap itself makes the engineer's participation in standards development more important
Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation
Board holds that absence of standards makes Company X's inaction not unreasonable, but simultaneously holds that Engineer A should bring good-faith concerns to governmental authorities — the two holdings are reconciled by distinguishing employer obligations from engineer obligations in a regulatory gap
Regulatory Gap Safety Escalation Obligation Invoked In New Product Context
The absence of national or industry standards specifically addressing the new consumer product heightens rather than diminishes Engineer A's professional obligation to escalate safety concerns through available channels, including regulatory participation
Because no existing standards address the product's unique safety profile, Engineer A's professional observations constitute some of the most important inputs available to the regulatory process — the regulatory gap makes Engineer A's participation in the standards hearing not merely permissible but professionally obligatory
The regulatory gap creates an affirmative escalation obligation that overrides residual employer loyalty, because the public has no other protective mechanism when standards do not yet exist
Reject Additional Testing Recommendation
Safety Inconsistency Detected (Event 1) → Recommend Additional Safety Testing (Action 1)
{'type': 'Public regulatory body', 'jurisdiction': 'State environmental regulation'}
Advised XYZ Corporation of permit requirements and minimum discharge standards; called a public hearing at which the corporation presented data; served as the appropriate authority to whom Engineer Doe had an obligation to report his findings upon learning of the hearing.
{'type': 'notification_target', 'target': 'Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer'}
{'type': 'regulates', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation Client BER 76-4'}
the XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it had 60 days to apply for a permit
the authority had called a public hearing
Supervisor B Engineering Employer Representative
{'employer': 'Company X', 'authority': 'Supervisory authority over Engineer A'}
Supervisor B is the immediate supervisory authority to whom Engineer A reports the safety concerns and recommends additional testing; Supervisor B (as representative of Company X's management) participates in the decision to reject the additional testing recommendation.
{'type': 'representative_of', 'target': 'Company X'}
{'type': 'supervisor_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
Verbally Report Findings to Client (Action 5 - BER 76-4) → BER 76-4 Client Conflict Arises (Event 6)
State Pollution Control Authority Discharge Permit Requirements
the XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it had 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water. XYZ Corporation was also advised of the minimum standard that must be met.
It is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 76-4 analysis cited as precedent
Referenced within BER Case 76-4 as the regulatory framework establishing minimum environmental standards for manufacturing waste discharge into receiving bodies of water, the violation of which triggered Engineer Doe's public safety reporting obligation
Professional engineering ethics bodies and legislative frameworks
Engineer A in evaluating the risks and ethical permissibility of hearing participation
Provides normative and legal grounding for Engineer A's potential participation in the public safety standards hearing as a form of public interest disclosure, including the conditions under which such participation is ethically permissible or encouraged and any protections available
Current professional norms and legal protections
{'type': 'Private industrial corporation', 'context': 'Pollution discharge permit application'}
Retained Engineer Doe to produce a report supporting its permit application; upon receiving adverse verbal findings, terminated the contract and instructed the engineer not to produce a written report; subsequently presented data to a public hearing authority claiming discharge met minimum standards.
{'type': 'regulated_by', 'target': 'State Pollution Control Authority BER 76-4'}
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer Doe BER 76-4 Pollution Consulting Engineer'}
the XYZ Corporation had presented data to support its view that the present discharge met minimum standards
XYZ Corporation terminating contract (BER 76-4) before Engineer Doe learning of the public hearing (BER 76-4)
government agency announcing public safety standards hearing before Engineer A considering participating as a witness
standard safety testing before Engineer A observing inconsistent performance issues
standard safety testing completion before Engineer A's resignation