Engineer A accumulates a long professional record unmarked by disclosure; non-disclosure becomes an established behavioral pattern; no adverse professional consequences materialize
Early career through pre-current-employer period (spanning ~25 years)
Engineer A successfully practiced engineering across multiple employers for 25 years without his Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis being known to employers. This outcome reflects the sustained professional viability of non-disclosure over a lengthy career.
ADA Protected Condition Ethics Code Non-Application Engineer A Autism Non-Disclosure
Engineer A's autism is ADA-protected; his employer and clients cannot use the NSPE Code's deception provisions to require disclosure of this protected condition
Ethics Reviewing Body / Employer / Clients
ADA-Protected Condition Ethics Code Deception Non-Application Constraint
The ethics code's deception provisions cannot be applied to Engineer A's 25-year non-disclosure of his autism diagnosis because that condition is affirmatively protected under the ADA, and applying the deception provision to compel disclosure would conflict with federal law and give the Code an impermissibly broad scope.
Americans with Disabilities Act; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER present case
Engineer A perceived the potential for bias on the part of Engineer A's employer and clients despite the fact that Engineer A's condition is clearly protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Throughout Engineer A's employment and ethics review
Engineer A has a personal right to privacy and, for whatever reason, the right to not communicate aspects of his condition that do not appear to affect his ability to practice engineering.
Adjudicated Wrongdoing Employment Application Compelled Disclosure BER 03-6 Engineer F Contractor License
Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his license number; he answered 'no' to a question about disciplinary history on an engineering employment application
Adjudicated Wrongdoing Employment Application Compelled Disclosure Constraint
Engineer F was ethically constrained to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license on the engineering firm employment application, even though the question referenced engineering licenses, because the revocation reflected on his character, integrity, and credibility as a professional engineer.
the Board of Ethical Review determined that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license.
At time of completing engineering firm employment application
it should have been equally clear to Engineer F that the employer's questions sought to elicit information concerning Engineer F's character, integrity, and credibility as a professional engineer.
Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Distinction BER 97-11 vs 03-6 Contrast
The Board uses the contrast between BER 97-11 and BER 03-6 as background for analyzing the present case involving Engineer A's autism non-disclosure
Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Distinction Constraint
Engineers are constrained to calibrate their disclosure obligations based on whether adverse professional history constitutes a mere allegation (BER 97-11 — non-compelled disclosure) versus an adjudicated finding such as license revocation (BER 03-6 — compelled disclosure), prohibiting conflation of the two categories.
BER Cases 97-11 and 03-6; NSPE Code of Ethics
a complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.
Whenever disclosure obligations arise in professional practice
Engineer A's condition is clearly protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Board of Ethical Review in contextualizing Engineer A's right to privacy and non-disclosure
Cited as the legal framework that protects Engineer A's condition, providing context for why non-disclosure of a disability is legally protected and reinforcing that the matter is personal rather than an ethical violation under the NSPE Code.
Exposure to self-advocacy messaging that would challenge his existing non-disclosure posture
Triggering a re-examination of his professional ethics obligations under the NSPE Code
Openness to information relevant to his condition and professional life
Personal self-care and community engagement
NSPE Code Section III.1.f.: treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination
Self-advocacy and personal dignity (as presented at the conference)
Seek community, information, and support related to his autism diagnosis; engage with perspectives on living and working as an autistic professional
Recent, prior to present ethical deliberation
Engineer A made a volitional decision to attend an autism support conference, exposing himself to self-advocacy perspectives that directly prompted his subsequent ethical reconsideration of his non-disclosure stance.
Attending Autism Support Conference (Action 3) → Ethical Doubt Arising in Engineer A (Event 4)
As a result of the speaker's advocacy at the autism support conference Engineer A attended, Engineer A experienced a state of ethical uncertainty about whether his continued non-disclosure was ethically appropriate
Attending Autism Support Conference (Action 3)
Without attending the conference, Engineer A would likely have continued his established non-disclosure pattern without documented ethical deliberation; the speaker's advocacy was the proximate trigger for doubt
Ethical Doubt Arising in Engineer A (Event 4)
Engineer A's capacity for ethical self-reflection
Engineer A's pre-existing undisclosed condition creating personal relevance
Engineer A's volitional decision to attend the conference
Presence of a speaker publicly advocating for self-disclosure
Engineer A (primary); Speaker (indirect contributor)
Attendance at conference + exposure to pro-disclosure advocacy + personal stake in the issue together were sufficient to generate ethical doubt where none had previously been documented
Autism support conference speaker (unnamed)
Self-Advocacy Guidance for Autistic Individuals (Conference Presentation)
One of the speakers presented on self-advocacy, which encourages autistic individuals, when able, to share who they are and what they can do.
The speaker noted that a person with autism needs to be treated with respect and not as someone with 'special needs.'
Engineer A as a catalyst for ethical reflection on disclosure
A conference speaker's presentation on self-advocacy prompted Engineer A to reconsider non-disclosure of his autism, framing disclosure as an act of professional and personal integrity rather than a vulnerability, and distinguishing respectful treatment from 'special needs' framing.
Presented at autism support conference attended by Engineer A
A more recent examination of deception can be found in BER Case 03-6.
Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license.
the employer's questions sought to elicit information concerning Engineer F's character, integrity, and credibility as a professional engineer
Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about the scope of deception avoidance in employment disclosure contexts
Establishes that an engineer has an ethical obligation to disclose the revocation of a contractor's license on an employment application even when the question is framed around engineering licensure, because the employer's intent is to assess character, integrity, and credibility.
In another case, BER Case 75-5, the Board found that personal misconduct unrelated to the practice of engineering was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code
Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about the scope of the deception-avoidance principle
Establishes that personal misconduct unrelated to the direct practice of engineering can still constitute a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics, because professional codes are intended to maintain public confidence in practitioners' integrity and decorous behavior.
The first is BER Case 97-11, in which Engineer A was retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a critical path method schedule for a manufacturing facility.
No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice
The Board found that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C.
Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning about disclosure obligations
Establishes that an engineer is not automatically obligated to disclose a pending ethics complaint to a current client; disclosure is discretionary and should be weighed based on the nature and seriousness of the charges.
BER Board ADA Non-Discrimination Dignity Provision Application Present Case
ADA Non-Discrimination Dignity Provision Application Capability
The Board demonstrated the capability to apply NSPE Code Section III.1.f's dignity and non-discrimination provision to the present case, recognizing that Engineer A's concern about employer bias is legitimate and that the ADA protection of his condition reinforces the ethical obligation of employers to treat him without discrimination.
Ethics review addressing Engineer A's concern about potential employer bias upon disclosure of autism diagnosis
Board's explicit invocation of NSPE Code III.1.f in the context of Engineer A's ADA-protected autism diagnosis and his concern about employer bias
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (present case)
This demonstrates the relevance of the newest addition to the NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.f.: 'Engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination.'
BER Board Ethics Code Deception Provision Scope Limitation Present Case
Ethics Code Deception Provision Scope Limitation Capability
The Board correctly recognized that the NSPE Code's 'avoidance of deception' provision cannot be interpreted so broadly as to require Engineer A to disclose his ADA-protected autism diagnosis, as doing so would give the provision an unintended and far too broad meaning.
Ethics review of Engineer A's 25-year non-disclosure of autism (Asperger's Syndrome) to employers and clients
Board's conclusion that Engineer A's non-disclosure of autism does not constitute a deceptive act under the NSPE Code, and its explicit warning against overextending the deception provision
The extent of one's legitimate right to privacy cannot be measured by language in the NSPE Code of Ethics relating to the 'avoidance of deception.' To do so would give an unintended and far too broad meaning to the NSPE Code of Ethics.
BER Board Personal Condition vs Engineering Conduct Distinction Present Case
Personal Condition vs Engineering Conduct Concealment Distinction Capability
The Board demonstrated the capability to distinguish between the earlier BER cases — which involved concealment of professional conduct — and the present case, which involves non-disclosure of a personal condition unrelated to engineering practice.
Comparative analysis of BER 97-11, BER 75-5, BER 03-6, and present case involving autism non-disclosure
Board's explicit comparison of BER 97-11 and BER 03-6 (conduct concealment) with the present case (personal condition non-disclosure), finding a 'clear distinction'
The facts of the earlier cases indicate an effort to conceal conduct on the part of the individual or associates relating to the practice of engineering or related fields. In contrast, the facts of the present case demonstrate no effort to conceal any conduct relating to the practice of engineering or related fields. Instead, the facts relate to a personal condition with little if any apparent impact on the individual's ability to successfully practice engineering.
BER Board Personal Misconduct Jurisdictional Boundary BER 75-5 Application
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdictional Boundary Recognition Capability
The Board demonstrated the capability to identify the jurisdictional boundary of the NSPE Code with respect to personal conduct — recognizing in BER 75-5 that personal misconduct affecting public confidence falls within the Code, while recognizing in the present case that a personal condition not affecting professional conduct falls outside the Code's deception provisions.
Application of BER 75-5 personal misconduct standard to distinguish present case involving ADA-protected personal condition
Board's citation of BER 75-5 for the proposition that personal misconduct can fall within the Code, followed by its distinction of the present case as involving a personal condition rather than personal misconduct
NSPE Board of Ethical Review (BER 75-5 and present case)
BER Board Precedent Triangulation Personal Disclosure Calibration Present Case
Analogical BER Precedent Triangulation Capability
The Board demonstrated the capability to triangulate across three BER precedents (97-11, 75-5, 03-6) to correctly calibrate the disclosure obligations applicable to Engineer A's autism non-disclosure, identifying the key distinctions between each precedent and the present case.
Ethics review requiring synthesis of three BER precedents to resolve novel personal disclosure question
Board's systematic review of BER 97-11 (pending complaint), BER 75-5 (personal misconduct), and BER 03-6 (contractor license revocation) before finding a 'clear distinction' with the present case involving a personal condition
Previous Board of Ethical Review cases provide some background for considering this case.
The Board finds a clear distinction between the earlier BER cases examining the deception issue and the present case.
The facts of the earlier cases indicate an effort to conceal conduct on the part of the individual or associates relating to the practice of engineering or related fields.
The first is BER Case 97-11...In another case, BER Case 75-5...A more recent examination of deception can be found in BER Case 03-6
A more recent examination of deception can be found in BER Case 03-6
Engineer A's ethical uncertainty is resolved in his favor; non-disclosure is reframed as a protected privacy right; the NSPE Code's deception provision is determined not to apply to passive non-disclosure of personal medical information
At the conclusion of the BER case analysis (present, after deliberation)
The Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A's non-disclosure of his Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis constitutes a personal privacy matter rather than a violation of the NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts. This outcome resolves the ethical uncertainty Engineer A experienced.
CausalLink_Attending Autism Support Confe
CausalLink_Consulting NSPE Code on Disclo
CausalLink_Deliberating Whether to Disclo
CausalLink_False Employment Application R
CausalLink_Initial Non-Disclosure of Auti
CausalLink_Non-Disclosure Decision by BER
CausalLink_Non-Disclosure at Current Empl
{'project_type': 'Manufacturing facility design and CPM scheduling'}
Client B retained Engineer A for design services and CPM scheduling; later learned through a third party of the pending ethics complaint against Engineer A and expressed upset that it had not been disclosed.
{'type': 'service_provider', 'target': 'Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer BER 97-11'}
Engineer A was retained by Client B to perform design services
Client B learned of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and told Engineer A that he was upset by the allegations
{'role_type': 'Complainant client', 'allegation': 'Engineer A lacked competence to perform the services in question'}
Client C filed an ethics complaint against Engineer A with the state board of professional engineers, alleging Engineer A lacked competence to perform services similar to those being performed for Client B.
{'type': 'prior_client', 'target': 'Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer BER 97-11'}
The complaint was filed by Client C relating to services provided on a project for Client C
Client C alleged that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question
Engineer A is certainly free to disclose his autism if he so chooses.
The Board clarifies that voluntary disclosure of autism is permissible and within Engineer A's personal discretion, but frames this as a choice rather than a requirement.
The Board's conclusion that non-disclosure does not constitute deception rests on a critical structural distinction: the NSPE Code's injunction to avoid deceptive acts targets affirmative misrepresentation, not the mere withholding of information that was never solicited. Silence in the absence of a direct inquiry is categorically different from a false statement. This distinction is sharpened by comparison with BER Case 03-6, in which Engineer F made an affirmative false statement on an employment application — an act of commission — whereas Engineer A's non-disclosure is an act of omission in a context where no question was ever posed. The ethical line between permissible privacy and impermissible deception therefore runs precisely at the point where a direct, material inquiry is made and a false answer is given. Engineer A never crossed that line. The 25-year duration of the non-disclosure does not transform the omission into deception; longevity of silence is not equivalent to sustained active concealment when no duty to speak existed in the first place.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A is free to disclose but not compelled to do so implicitly acknowledges a deeper tension the Board did not fully articulate: the Americans with Disabilities Act structurally resolves the ethical dilemma Engineer A perceives by removing the legal legitimacy of the very employer inquiry that would make non-disclosure ethically fraught. Because the ADA prohibits employers from asking about disability status in the first place, Engineer A was never placed in a position where truthful disclosure was legally required. The absence of a lawful inquiry means there was no occasion for deception. This legal architecture effectively pre-empts the ethical tension: an engineer cannot be said to have deceived an employer about information the employer was legally prohibited from seeking. The Board's conclusion gains additional force from this legal context, even though the Board did not explicitly invoke it. Engineer A's ethical standing is therefore reinforced, not merely by the Code's silence on affirmative disclosure duties, but by the affirmative legal prohibition that made such disclosure a matter of Engineer A's voluntary choice from the outset.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A may freely disclose if he chooses, while correct as far as it goes, leaves unaddressed a significant asymmetry in the ethical analysis: the Code provision requiring that all persons be treated with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination applies with equal force to Engineer A's employer and potential future employers. If an employer were to respond to voluntary disclosure with adverse employment action motivated by bias about autism, that employer — not Engineer A — would be the party whose conduct raises Code concerns. The Board's framing focuses entirely on Engineer A's obligations, but a complete ethical analysis would recognize that Engineer A's reluctance to disclose is itself a rational response to a foreseeable Code violation by others. This creates a structural irony: Engineer A's non-disclosure, which the Board correctly finds ethically permissible, is in part a protective response to anticipated discriminatory conduct that would itself be ethically impermissible under the same Code. The Board's analysis would have been strengthened by acknowledging that the ethical burden in this scenario does not rest solely or even primarily on Engineer A.
Engineer A's deliberate, reflective engagement with both the NSPE Code and the autism self-advocacy framework — rather than acting out of unreflective fear or mere convenience — itself constitutes evidence of the kind of practical wisdom and professional integrity that Code provision I.6 envisions when it calls on engineers to conduct themselves honorably and responsibly. A consequentialist reading of Engineer A's 25-year record further reinforces this conclusion: the absence of any harm to clients, employers, or the public during that period is affirmative evidence that the non-disclosure produced no negative professional consequences and that Engineer A's competence was never materially compromised by his autism in ways that would have created an independent duty to disclose. These two frameworks converge on the same conclusion the Board reached, but from different directions: deontologically, no duty to disclose existed; consequentially, no harm resulted from non-disclosure; and from a virtue ethics standpoint, Engineer A's careful deliberation itself reflects the character of an honorable professional. The Board's conclusion is therefore robust across multiple ethical frameworks, not merely as a matter of Code interpretation.
The Board's conclusions, taken together, implicitly establish a principle with broader applicability beyond autism: an engineer's personal medical or disability information that has not been solicited by an employer, that is protected from employer inquiry by law, and that has not been affirmatively misrepresented, falls within a domain of personal privacy that the NSPE Code does not penetrate. The Code's honorable conduct provision does not transform every personal characteristic into a professionally disclosable fact. This principle is important because it prevents the Code from being weaponized to compel disclosure of sensitive personal information under the guise of avoiding deception — a result that would be both legally problematic under the ADA and ethically unjustifiable given the Code's own non-discrimination mandate. The Board's conclusion, while narrowly framed around Engineer A's specific situation, thus has the character of a general interpretive rule: the duty to avoid deceptive acts is a duty not to lie, not a duty to volunteer every personal fact that an employer might find material.
However, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure nor does a failure to disclose somehow constitutes a 'deception.'
The Board explicitly determines that non-disclosure of Engineer A's autism diagnosis does not constitute a deceptive act under the NSPE Code of Ethics, and that the Code imposes no affirmative obligation to disclose a medical condition such as autism to employers.
The NSPE Code's duty to avoid deceptive acts under provision I.5 operates as a prohibition on active misrepresentation, not as an affirmative mandate to volunteer unsolicited personal information. Deception, in its ordinary and legal sense, requires an intentional act of creating a false impression — either through a false statement, a misleading half-truth, or a deliberate concealment of information that the other party has a right to know. Because no employer has a legal right under the Americans with Disabilities Act to inquire into Engineer A's autism diagnosis, and because Engineer A has never been directly asked about his disability status, his silence cannot logically satisfy the elements of a deceptive act. Silence in the absence of a duty to speak is not deception; it is privacy. The Code provision therefore imposes no affirmative obligation on Engineer A to disclose his autism diagnosis.
The Americans with Disabilities Act's prohibition on employer inquiries into disability status does more than merely protect Engineer A from intrusive questioning — it structurally resolves the ethical tension Engineer A perceives between privacy and the duty to avoid deception. Because the ADA makes it unlawful for an employer to ask about disability status prior to a conditional offer of employment, any ethical duty to disclose that might otherwise arise from the NSPE Code's honorable conduct provision cannot be triggered by a question that the law forbids the employer from asking. The legal framework effectively forecloses the scenario in which silence could be construed as a deceptive omission, because the predicate condition for that omission — a legitimate, lawful inquiry — is legally prohibited. Engineer A's ethical tension is therefore not a genuine conflict between privacy and honesty; it is a perceived conflict that dissolves upon examination of the legal architecture surrounding disability disclosure.
If Engineer A's employer were to learn of his autism diagnosis through a third party rather than through Engineer A's own voluntary disclosure, the prior non-disclosure would not retroactively become a deceptive act under the NSPE Code. Ethical characterization of an act or omission is determined at the time of the conduct, not by subsequent events or how others later perceive it. Because Engineer A's non-disclosure was lawful, was never accompanied by any false affirmative statement, and occurred in a context where no duty to speak existed, the passage of 25 years and the involvement of multiple employers do not transform a permissible exercise of medical privacy into a course of deception. The duration of non-disclosure is ethically irrelevant to the deception analysis, though it may be practically relevant to how Engineer A manages any future voluntary disclosure conversation.
The NSPE Code provision III.1.f, which requires engineers to treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination, is directed at the conduct of engineers in their professional dealings — it is not a provision that generates obligations running from an engineer to his or her employer. However, the provision does carry an important implication for the present case: if Engineer A's employer or a future employer were to take adverse action against Engineer A based on his autism diagnosis, that employer — if also a licensed engineer or engineering firm subject to the Code — would be in potential violation of III.1.f. The Board's analysis focused exclusively on Engineer A's obligations and did not address the employer's corresponding ethical duties. A more complete analysis would recognize that the Code's non-discrimination principle creates a reciprocal ethical environment in which Engineer A's fear of bias-driven retaliation is itself a recognized ethical harm, and that the Code implicitly condemns the discriminatory conduct that makes Engineer A's non-disclosure feel necessary in the first place.
The self-advocacy norm presented at the autism support conference — that autistic individuals should disclose who they are and be treated with respect rather than as persons with special needs — is a community-based ethical framework that operates at a different register than the NSPE Code. The two frameworks are not in direct conflict: the NSPE Code establishes a floor of professional ethical obligation, while the self-advocacy framework articulates an aspirational personal and social norm. Engineer A is not ethically required by the NSPE Code to adopt the self-advocacy framework, but neither does the Code prohibit him from doing so. The conference speaker's message is best understood as an invitation to Engineer A to consider disclosure as an act of personal integrity and community solidarity, not as a professional ethical mandate. Engineer A may weigh this community norm as a morally significant consideration without treating it as a binding professional obligation, and the practical wisdom the Code implicitly demands of engineers includes the capacity to distinguish between these two types of normative claims.
From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's 25-year non-disclosure does not constitute a breach of the duty to avoid deceptive acts under the NSPE Code. Kantian deontology distinguishes between lying — which involves making a false assertion — and silence, which is not inherently a moral wrong unless a specific duty to speak exists. Because no such duty exists here, either under the NSPE Code or under applicable law, Engineer A's silence is categorically distinct from deception. The duty to avoid deceptive acts is a negative duty — a duty to refrain from creating false impressions — and it does not generate a positive duty to disclose all personal information that might be material to an employer's preferences. Engineer A's conduct satisfies the deontological requirement of the Code because he has made no false assertion and has exploited no informational asymmetry that he was obligated to correct.
From a deontological perspective, the duty under NSPE Code provision III.1.f to treat all persons with dignity, respect, and fairness creates a complex secondary obligation that the Board did not explore. If Engineer A's employer holds biases about autism that would trigger discriminatory treatment upon disclosure, then the employer's anticipated conduct would itself violate the spirit of III.1.f. Engineer A's decision to withhold information in order to protect himself from that anticipated discriminatory treatment is not a violation of any duty he owes — it is a rational and ethically defensible response to a foreseeable wrong by another party. A deontological framework that takes seriously the dignity of all persons must account for the fact that Engineer A's non-disclosure is partly a response to a structural injustice, not merely a self-interested concealment. This does not create an obligation on Engineer A to withhold information, but it does mean that his non-disclosure cannot be morally condemned when it is motivated in part by the reasonable anticipation of another party's ethical failure.
From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's 25-year record of competent, successful engineering practice across multiple employers and four state licensures constitutes strong empirical evidence that his non-disclosure has produced net positive consequences relative to disclosure. No client has been harmed, no professional judgment has been impaired in any documented way, and no public safety concern has arisen from his autism diagnosis. The consequentialist calculus must also account for the prospective harms that disclosure might have caused — career disruption, employer bias, reduced professional opportunity — against which the benefits of disclosure (personal authenticity, community solidarity, potential normalization of autism in engineering) must be weighed. The aggregate outcome of 25 years of non-disclosure is a productive engineering career that has served clients, employers, and the public well. This track record does not by itself justify non-disclosure as a permanent policy, but it does demonstrate that the non-disclosure has not been consequentially harmful and that the consequentialist case for mandatory disclosure is weak.
From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A's deliberate, reflective engagement with both the NSPE Code and the autism self-advocacy framework — rather than acting out of fear, convenience, or unreflective habit — is itself a demonstration of the practical wisdom and professional integrity that characterize an honorable engineer under Code provision I.6. Virtue ethics evaluates character and the quality of moral reasoning, not merely outcomes or rule compliance. Engineer A has not avoided this question; he has sought out relevant frameworks, attended a conference, consulted the Code, and engaged in sustained deliberation. This process of careful moral reasoning reflects the kind of character the Code aspires to cultivate. Whether Engineer A ultimately chooses to disclose or not, his manner of approaching the decision — thoughtfully, with reference to both professional and community norms — is itself ethically commendable and consistent with the honorable conduct the Code demands.
The contrast between Engineer A's situation and that of Engineer F in BER Case 03-6 reveals precisely where the line between permissible privacy and impermissible deception lies under the NSPE Code. Engineer F made a false affirmative statement on an employment application — an active misrepresentation that created a false impression the employer relied upon. Engineer A made no statement at all; he simply did not volunteer information that was never solicited and that the law protects him from being required to disclose. The ethical distinction is not merely technical: it reflects the fundamental difference between lying and silence. The Code's prohibition on deceptive acts is violated by the former and not by the latter, provided no duty to speak exists. BER Case 03-6 therefore serves as a useful limiting case that clarifies the scope of the deception prohibition — it applies to false assertions and active concealment of information one is obligated to disclose, not to the exercise of legally protected medical privacy.
The counterfactual scenario in which Engineer A's autism had at some point materially affected a client deliverable or a professional judgment call would shift the ethical analysis significantly, but would not necessarily transform non-disclosure into a deceptive act under the NSPE Code. Rather, the relevant Code provisions that would be implicated in that scenario would be those governing public safety, competence, and the engineer's duty to clients — not the deception provision. If a specific limitation arising from autism had caused or risked causing harm, the ethical question would be whether Engineer A had an obligation to disclose that limitation to protect the client or the public, not whether his general autism diagnosis should have been disclosed to his employer. The Board's conclusion that non-disclosure does not constitute deception would likely remain intact even in that scenario, but a separate and more urgent ethical obligation — to protect public safety and client interests — would arise independently of the disclosure question. The two analyses are conceptually distinct.
The risk scenario in which Engineer A's employer learns of his autism diagnosis through a third party and perceives the long silence as deliberate concealment, potentially initiating adverse employment action, illustrates why the Board's conclusion — while legally and ethically sound — may be practically insufficient guidance for Engineer A. The ADA would protect Engineer A from disability-based adverse employment action, and the NSPE Code's dignity provision would condemn discriminatory employer conduct, but neither protection eliminates the reputational and relational harm that could flow from an employer's perception of concealment. This practical risk does not change the ethical calculus — non-disclosure remains ethically permissible — but it does suggest that Engineer A's deliberation about voluntary disclosure should include a pragmatic assessment of how to manage the narrative around any future disclosure, rather than treating the ethical permissibility of non-disclosure as a complete answer to his situation. Ethics and prudence are distinct inquiries, and the Board addressed only the former.
If Engineer A's current employer were to reassign him away from client-facing roles upon learning of his autism diagnosis through voluntary disclosure—citing performance concerns that had not previously existed—that action would constitute a textbook violation of the ADA's prohibition on adverse employment action based on disability, particularly where no actual performance deficiency exists and the reassignment is motivated by stereotyped assumptions about autism and client interaction. From the perspective of the NSPE Code, such an employer action would also violate Section III.1.f's requirement to treat all persons with dignity, respect, and without discrimination. While the NSPE Code does not provide Engineer A with a direct enforcement mechanism against his employer equivalent to an EEOC complaint, the Code's dignity provision creates a normative standard that professional engineering organizations, licensing boards, and the broader engineering community can invoke to condemn discriminatory employer conduct. Engineer A's recourse would primarily lie through ADA enforcement channels, but the NSPE Code's dignity provision independently characterizes such employer conduct as inconsistent with the ethical standards of the profession—providing a professional ethics basis for advocacy, complaint, and reputational accountability beyond the legal remedy.
The apparent tension between the NSPE Code's duty to avoid deceptive acts and Engineer A's right to medical privacy is resolved not by weighing one principle against the other, but by recognizing that the deceptive-acts provision is structurally limited to active misrepresentation. Silence in the absence of a solicited inquiry does not satisfy the threshold requirement for deception under the Code. The Board's conclusion effectively establishes a bright-line rule: the duty to avoid deceptive acts is a negative duty — a prohibition on affirmative falsehood — not a positive duty requiring engineers to volunteer personal medical information. Medical privacy, reinforced by the Americans with Disabilities Act's prohibition on employer disability inquiries, therefore does not conflict with the Code's honesty norm; rather, the two operate in separate domains. The Code governs what engineers must not say; the ADA governs what employers may not ask. Together, they create a protected zone of silence around disability status that is legally and ethically coherent, not contradictory.
This case teaches that when multiple principles appear to conflict, the resolution often lies in identifying the correct level of specificity at which each principle operates rather than declaring one principle superior to another. The self-advocacy norm promoted at the autism support conference — that autistic individuals should disclose who they are and be treated with respect — is a community-based ethical framework oriented toward personal dignity and social integration. The NSPE Code's honorable-conduct provision is a professional framework oriented toward competence, integrity, and public protection. These two frameworks address different audiences, different relationships, and different harms. The Board implicitly resolved the tension between them by treating the self-advocacy framework as a personal choice resource rather than a professional obligation, thereby preserving Engineer A's autonomy without subordinating either framework. This resolution models a principle-prioritization approach in which professional codes set floors of required conduct while community or personal ethical frameworks may permissibly raise the ceiling for individuals who choose to act on them.
The juxtaposition of this case with BER Case 03-6 reveals that the NSPE Code's principle against deception is triggered by the act of commission, not the fact of omission. Engineer F made a false affirmative statement on an employment application — an act that directly and intentionally created a false belief in the mind of the hiring authority. Engineer A made no statement at all about a subject that was never raised. The contrast between these two scenarios exposes the precise boundary between permissible privacy and impermissible deception under the Code: the line is drawn at the point where silence becomes an instrument of active misrepresentation, such as when an engineer's non-disclosure is designed to defeat a direct and material inquiry. Absent such an inquiry, the Code's dignity and non-discrimination provision — which protects all persons including Engineer A from bias-driven treatment — actually reinforces the ethical legitimacy of non-disclosure by acknowledging that the very bias Engineer A fears would itself constitute a Code violation by an employer who acted on it. This creates a coherent, internally consistent ethical framework in which Engineer A's silence is not only permissible but is arguably the response the legal and professional system was designed to make safe.
Engaging with the Code could surface obligations Engineer A had not previously considered, increasing personal ethical burden
Self-scrutiny could lead to a conclusion that disclosure is ethically required, forcing a difficult career decision
Engagement with the governing professional code as a licensed engineer
Proactive ethical self-examination consistent with professional responsibility
Duty to understand and apply the ethical standards of one's profession
NSPE Code of Ethics: avoid deceptive acts
Professional integrity and self-regulation
Determine whether his non-disclosure of Asperger's Syndrome was ethically permissible or whether the NSPE Code obligated him to disclose to his employer
Ethical reasoning and Code interpretation
Self-reflection and professional judgment
Recent, following autism support conference attendance
Following the conference, Engineer A deliberately engaged with the NSPE Code of Ethics, specifically the 'avoid deceptive acts' provision, to evaluate whether his longstanding non-disclosure of his autism constituted an ethical violation requiring corrective action.
Consulting NSPE Code on Disclosure (Action 4) → BER Conclusion: Privacy Not Deception (Event 5)
Following the conference, Engineer A deliberately engaged with the NSPE Code of Ethics, which prompted ethical review and ultimately led the Board of Ethical Review to conclude that Engineer A's non-disclosure of his Asperger's Syndrome did not constitute deception but rather a protected exercise of personal privacy
Consulting NSPE Code on Disclosure (Action 4)
Without Engineer A consulting the NSPE Code and triggering BER review, no formal ethical determination would have been rendered; had Engineer A made affirmative false statements (as in BER Case 03-6), the outcome would likely have been reversed
BER Conclusion: Privacy Not Deception (Event 5)
Absence of any affirmative false statement by Engineer A regarding his condition
BER's interpretive authority over the Code
Engineer A's deliberate engagement with the NSPE Code of Ethics
Historical BER case precedents (Cases 97-11 and 03-6) providing comparative deception standards
The NSPE Code's provisions distinguishing privacy from deception
Engineer A (initiating consultation); BER (rendering conclusion)
Engineer A's Code consultation + BER review process + distinction between passive non-disclosure and active misrepresentation was sufficient to produce the privacy-not-deception conclusion
Continued Non-Disclosure Outcome at Current Employer
Non-disclosure pattern becomes entrenched within current employment relationship; Engineer A's professional standing at current employer is unaffected by the undisclosed condition
Past 5 years at current employer, prior to conference attendance
Over the five years at his current employer, Engineer A's non-disclosure of Asperger's Syndrome persisted without professional consequence, extending the pattern established over his prior career into his present employment context.
Current Engineering Employer ADA Disability Bias Adverse Action Prohibition
Engineer A fears that voluntary disclosure of autism could lead to career-limiting adverse action by his current employer or future employers based on bias or speculative concerns about client interactions.
Disability Bias Adverse Employment Action Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A's current employer is legally and ethically prohibited from taking adverse employment action against Engineer A based on bias or unfounded concerns about his autism following any voluntary disclosure, given Engineer A's 5-year competent performance record with the firm and 25-year career record overall.
Americans with Disabilities Act; NSPE Code of Ethics
disclosure could limit his career options if his employer and potential future employers have biases or concerns about client interactions
Upon and following any voluntary disclosure by Engineer A to current employer
Engineer A is concerned that doing so might place his career in jeopardy
Current Engineering Employer ADA Non-Discrimination Dignity Obligation Present Case
Engineer A's current employer needs the capability to apply NSPE Code III.1.f and ADA non-discrimination principles to ensure that any disclosure of Engineer A's autism diagnosis does not trigger adverse employment action based on bias or unfounded assumptions about disability.
Engineering firm that has employed Engineer A for 5 years without knowledge of his autism diagnosis
Employer's obligation to treat Engineer A with dignity and without discrimination if autism is disclosed, as identified by the Board
Current Engineering Employer of Engineer A
Engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination.
Engineer A perceived the potential for bias on the part of Engineer A's employer and clients
Should Engineer A proactively disclose his autism diagnosis to his current employer even though the employer has never solicited that information?
Engineer A, who has been diagnosed with autism but has never been asked about it by any employer, must decide whether to voluntarily disclose his diagnosis to his current employer after 25 years of non-disclosure. The tension arises between the NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts and the ADA-protected right to medical privacy.
Voluntarily disclose autism diagnosis to current employer without being asked
Maintain non-disclosure of autism diagnosis given that no employer inquiry was made and ADA protects medical privacy
Consult the NSPE Code and prior BER precedents before making any disclosure decision
Licensed Professional Engineer (Engineer A)
Should Engineer A treat his 25-year non-disclosure of his autism diagnosis as ethically permissible under the NSPE Code's deception provision, or does the duration and professional context of the omission cross a materiality threshold that triggers an affirmative disclosure obligation?
Engineer A's obligation regarding non-disclosure of his autism diagnosis under the NSPE Code's deception provision, given ADA protections and 25-year competent career
Continue non-disclosure of autism diagnosis, treating it as a personal medical matter outside the jurisdictional scope of the NSPE Code's deception provision, on the grounds that the ADA shields it from compelled disclosure and the 25-year performance record rebuts any materiality claim
Proactively disclose the autism diagnosis to the current employer, treating the 25-year duration of non-disclosure as having crossed a relational materiality threshold that the Code's honesty norm requires correcting, while invoking ADA protections to guard against adverse action
Seek a formal advisory opinion from the state licensing board or NSPE BER clarifying whether the Code's deception provision applies to ADA-protected conditions before making any disclosure decision, thereby discharging the duty of good-faith ethical inquiry without prematurely disclosing or definitively withholding
Does the allegation-adjudication framework established in BER 97-11 and BER 03-6 map onto Engineer A's autism non-disclosure in a way that renders it ethically permissible, or does the 25-year duration and multi-employer scope of the omission make it structurally analogous to Engineer F's active concealment of an adjudicated professional sanction?
Applying the allegation-adjudication distinction from BER 97-11 and BER 03-6 to determine whether Engineer A's autism non-disclosure is analogous to Engineer F's concealment of an adjudicated license revocation or to the permissible non-disclosure of a pending complaint
Treat the BER 97-11 and BER 03-6 framework as mapping favorably onto Engineer A's situation, concluding that autism non-disclosure is categorically more permissible than either precedent scenario and requires no corrective disclosure action
Treat the 25-year multi-employer duration of non-disclosure as functionally analogous to Engineer F's active concealment on a formal application, and voluntarily disclose the autism diagnosis to the current employer to cure any ongoing omission that the Code's deception provision might reach
Distinguish the BER precedents as inapplicable to ADA-protected conditions while proactively documenting the legal and ethical basis for non-disclosure in personal records, so that if the question arises in a future employment application or licensing renewal, Engineer A can demonstrate good-faith reliance on a principled framework rather than evasion
Given that the NSPE Code neither compels nor prohibits voluntary disclosure of Engineer A's autism diagnosis, how should Engineer A exercise his autonomous self-advocacy discretion—and does the employer's reciprocal dignity obligation under Section III.1.f meaningfully alter the prudential calculus in favor of disclosure?
Engineer A's exercise of autonomous self-advocacy discretion regarding voluntary disclosure of his autism diagnosis, weighing the self-advocacy principle against prudential career risks and the employer's reciprocal dignity obligations
Continue non-disclosure at the current employer as a considered prudential judgment, recognizing that the Code creates no obligation to disclose and that the career risks of disclosure in an imperfectly bias-free environment outweigh the personal benefits of self-advocacy at this time
Voluntarily disclose the autism diagnosis to the current employer, invoking ADA protections and the employer's Section III.1.f dignity obligation as a framework for the disclosure conversation, and requesting any reasonable accommodations that would further support continued high performance
Disclose the autism diagnosis selectively to trusted colleagues or a direct supervisor in an informal context rather than through a formal HR process, balancing the self-advocacy interest in authentic professional identity against the career risk of formal employer documentation of the disclosure
Does Engineer A have an affirmative ethical duty under the NSPE Code to disclose his autism diagnosis, or does the deceptive acts provision apply only to active misrepresentation?
Engineer A is deliberating whether the NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts requires him to affirmatively volunteer his autism diagnosis, or whether silence on a never-asked-about medical condition constitutes permissible non-disclosure rather than prohibited deception. This mirrors the BER Case 97-11 precedent involving non-disclosure of a prior ethics complaint.
Treat silence on an unsolicited medical condition as ethically equivalent to active deception and disclose proactively
Distinguish passive non-disclosure from active misrepresentation and refrain from volunteering unsolicited medical information
Apply the BER Case 97-11 precedent to conclude that non-disclosure of non-solicited personal information does not violate the deceptive acts provision
Should Engineer A treat the self-advocacy disclosure norm promoted at the autism support conference as an enforceable professional ethics obligation under the NSPE Code, or as a personal choice outside the scope of formal engineering ethics?
After attending an autism support conference where a speaker advocates that autistic individuals should disclose who they are and be treated with respect rather than as persons with special needs, Engineer A must decide whether this self-advocacy norm creates a professional ethics obligation that supplements or overrides the NSPE Code's framework.
Adopt the self-advocacy disclosure norm as a binding professional obligation and disclose autism diagnosis to employer
Recognize the self-advocacy norm as a personal and community value distinct from formal NSPE Code obligations and make disclosure a matter of individual choice
Integrate the self-advocacy framework into personal professional identity without treating it as an externally enforceable ethics requirement
Should Engineer A weigh his demonstrated 25-year record of competent engineering practice as ethically dispositive evidence that non-disclosure of his autism diagnosis has caused no harm and fulfills his core professional obligations?
Engineer A must assess whether his 25-year record of competent professional practice across multiple employers and four state licensures is ethically relevant to the disclosure question, and whether the consequentialist evidence of successful performance resolves any residual ethical doubt about non-disclosure.
Treat the 25-year record of competent practice as sufficient evidence that non-disclosure has not compromised professional obligations and continue non-disclosure
Disclose autism diagnosis to employer to ensure full transparency regardless of past performance record
Use the demonstrated competence record as one factor among several in a reflective deliberation about whether disclosure serves any professional ethics purpose
Does NSPE Code provision III.1.f create any affirmative obligation on Engineer A to disclose his autism diagnosis as a means of advancing non-discriminatory professional norms, or does that provision govern only how others must treat Engineer A?
Engineer A must determine whether the NSPE Code provision III.1.f — requiring engineers to treat all persons with dignity, respect, and fairness without discrimination — creates any secondary obligation on him to disclose his autism diagnosis in order to model or promote non-discriminatory workplace norms, or whether that provision is directed solely at the conduct of others toward him.
Interpret NSPE Code III.1.f as imposing an affirmative disclosure obligation on Engineer A to promote non-discriminatory norms and disclose autism diagnosis
Interpret NSPE Code III.1.f as governing the conduct of Engineer A toward others rather than creating a self-disclosure mandate and maintain non-disclosure
Advocate for non-discriminatory workplace norms through professional channels without treating personal medical disclosure as an ethics requirement
Should the NSPE Board of Ethical Review use Engineer A's case as the basis for issuing broader guidance that establishes a generalizable materiality-and-legal-protection test distinguishing ADA-protected personal medical conditions from professionally material omissions subject to the Code's deception provision?
Whether the NSPE Board of Ethical Review should issue broader prospective guidance establishing a principled boundary between ADA-protected personal medical privacy and the Code's deception provision, applicable to all engineers with undisclosed health conditions
Issue broader prospective BER guidance adopting a two-part materiality-and-legal-protection test, explicitly establishing that the Code's deception provision does not reach ADA-protected medical conditions absent a formal adjudication of professional incapacity, and applying this framework prospectively to all engineers with undisclosed health conditions
Resolve Engineer A's specific case on its facts without issuing broader guidance, treating the three-tier allegation-adjudication-protected-condition hierarchy as implicit in the reasoning but declining to codify it as a generalizable rule pending further cases that test the framework's boundaries
Issue narrower guidance limited to autism spectrum conditions specifically, deferring the question of other ADA-protected conditions such as depression, ADHD, and physical disabilities to future cases where the specific factual and legal context of each condition can be evaluated on its own terms
Engineering Firm Hiring Authority BER 03-6
Should Engineer A disclose his autism diagnosis to his current employer, and does continued non-disclosure constitute a deceptive act under the NSPE Code of Ethics?
Engineer A's decision whether to disclose his autism diagnosis to his current employer, given 25 years of non-disclosure, the NSPE Code's deception provision, and ADA protections
Continue non-disclosure of autism diagnosis to current employer, treating the condition as a personal medical matter outside the NSPE Code's deception provision, while remaining open to voluntary disclosure at Engineer A's own discretion
Voluntarily disclose autism diagnosis to current employer now, invoking self-advocacy principles and relying on ADA protections and the Code's dignity provision to guard against adverse employment action
Disclose autism diagnosis selectively to a trusted supervisor or HR representative under a confidentiality request, seeking workplace accommodations if needed while limiting broader organizational exposure
Does the allegation-adjudication framework from prior BER cases—which required disclosure of an adjudicated professional sanction but permitted non-disclosure of a pending complaint—map onto Engineer A's autism non-disclosure in a way that compels, permits, or is simply inapplicable to his situation?
Applying the allegation-adjudication distinction from BER 97-11 and BER 03-6 to determine whether Engineer A's autism non-disclosure is analogous to Engineer F's concealment of an adjudicated license revocation, and calibrating the disclosure obligation accordingly
Treat autism non-disclosure as categorically outside the BER 03-6 disclosure obligation by applying the three-tier hierarchy—adjudicated sanction, pending allegation, protected personal condition—and maintain non-disclosure as ethically permissible
Apply BER 03-6 by analogy, treating 25 years of non-disclosure across multiple employers as functionally equivalent to active concealment of a professionally relevant condition on employment applications, and disclose proactively to current employer
Seek a formal BER advisory opinion to clarify whether the allegation-adjudication framework extends to ADA-protected medical conditions before making any disclosure decision, deferring action pending authoritative guidance
When Engineer A weighs voluntary autism disclosure against the prudential risk of employer bias and career harm, is this tension an ethical dilemma governed by the NSPE Code—requiring a Code-mandated resolution—or a personal and strategic calculation that the Code's silence leaves entirely to his autonomous judgment?
Engineer A's deliberation over whether to voluntarily disclose his autism diagnosis, weighing self-advocacy and authentic professional identity against prudential risks of employer bias, and determining what ethical framework governs that personal calculus
Decline to disclose autism diagnosis at this time, treating the decision as a personal prudential matter outside the NSPE Code's mandate, while continuing to monitor workplace conditions and reserving the right to disclose voluntarily in the future
Voluntarily disclose autism diagnosis to current employer in the spirit of self-advocacy and authentic professional identity, relying on ADA protections and the Code's dignity provision as dual safeguards against adverse employment action
Engage in structured consultation with an employment attorney and an NSPE ethics advisor before deciding, treating the disclosure decision as requiring professional guidance given the intersection of ADA rights, career risk, and Code obligations
Disclosure could expose him to employer bias despite ADA protections, limiting career advancement
Disclosure could improve workplace relationships and personal authenticity but at professional cost
Non-disclosure continuation could perpetuate ethical discomfort if he concludes the Code requires disclosure
Consideration of professional code obligations before acting
Ongoing competent practice of engineering
Reach a decision about disclosure that honors both his ethical obligations as a professional engineer and his personal rights to privacy and career security; potentially align his professional conduct with the self-advocacy principles he encountered at the conference
Ethical reasoning and professional judgment
Knowledge of ADA rights and NSPE Code provisions
Self-advocacy and communication skills (if disclosure chosen)
Engineer A is actively deliberating whether to voluntarily disclose his Asperger's Syndrome to his current employer, weighing the self-advocacy principles from the conference, his interpretation of the NSPE Code, and the potential career consequences of disclosure.
Derived from NSPE Code of Ethics and professional engineering ethics practice
Professional Standard on Disability Non-Disclosure in Engineering Employment
Disability Disclosure Employment Standard
Engineer A has kept this fact not only from his current employer (which he has worked for 5 years) but also previous employers.
Engineer A considered the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires engineers to 'avoid deceptive acts.'
Engineer A would like to be open about his autism, but because Engineer A obtained his employment without disclosing his autism, Engineer A is concerned that doing so might place his career in jeopardy.
Engineer A and ethics reviewers evaluating the disclosure dilemma
The operative professional standard at issue in this case: whether an engineer's non-disclosure of a personal disability (Asperger's Syndrome) to employers — when the engineer has performed competently and the condition was never solicited — constitutes a deceptive act under the NSPE Code.
Implicit standard derived from NSPE Code deceptive acts provision
Engineer A 25-Year Performance Record Autism Non-Disclosure Materiality Rebuttal
Engineer A's sustained competent performance across multiple employers and jurisdictions without disclosure of autism is the primary factual basis for concluding that the non-disclosure does not rise to the level of a material omission constituting a deceptive act.
Demonstrated Competence Non-Disclosure Materiality Rebuttal Constraint
Engineer A's 25-year record of successful professional engineering practice across multiple employers and four state licensures constitutes affirmative evidence that his autism/Asperger's Syndrome is not material to his professional fitness, constraining any characterization of his non-disclosure as a deceptive material omission under the NSPE Code.
NSPE Code of Ethics (avoid deceptive acts); BER Case 97-11; BER Case 03-6 (materiality standard by contrast)
Engineer A, a professional engineer licensed in four states, specializes in air pollution control and air emissions permitting and has practiced professional engineering successfully for 25 years for multiple employers.
Retrospective assessment covering Engineer A's entire 25-year career
Engineer A ADA Non-Compelled Autism Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A has never disclosed his autism diagnosis to any employer across 25 years and four state licensures; he is now contemplating voluntary disclosure after attending an autism support conference and is concerned whether prior non-disclosure violated the NSPE Code's deception prohibition.
ADA-Protected Condition Voluntary Disclosure Non-Compulsion Constraint
Engineer A's non-disclosure of his autism/Asperger's Syndrome to current and prior employers is legally protected under the ADA and does not constitute a 'deceptive act' under the NSPE Code of Ethics, because the ADA affirmatively protects disability non-disclosure and Engineer A's 25-year competent performance record demonstrates the non-materiality of the undisclosed condition.
Americans with Disabilities Act; NSPE Code of Ethics (avoid deceptive acts provision); BER Case 97-11
Engineer A has autism and, more specifically, Asperger's Syndrome.
Throughout Engineer A's 25-year career and continuing into current employment
Engineer A ADA Non-Disclosure Non-Deception Compliance Present Case Individual
ADA-Protected Condition Non-Disclosure Non-Deception Distinction Capability
Engineer A's situation demonstrates the need for the capability to recognize that non-disclosure of his autism diagnosis does not constitute a deceptive act under the NSPE Code, given that the condition is ADA-protected and has not impaired his professional practice.
Engineer A's decision not to disclose autism (Asperger's Syndrome) to current employer of 5 years
Engineer A's 25-year successful practice across multiple employers and four state licenses without disclosing his autism diagnosis, without any finding of deception
Engineer A functioned as a professional engineer and had a successful professional career, practicing competently, as required by the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Engineer A ADA Non-Disclosure Non-Deception Distinction Present Case
Engineer A must exercise the capability to correctly recognize that his 25-year non-disclosure of autism (Asperger's Syndrome) does not constitute a 'deceptive act' under the NSPE Code of Ethics, as he has made no affirmative false statements about his condition
Engineer A attended an autism support conference and is now weighing whether his long-standing non-disclosure violates the NSPE Code prohibition on deceptive acts
Deliberate consideration of NSPE Code language on 'deceptive acts' in relation to his non-disclosure of autism across multiple employers over 25 years
Engineer A Allegation vs Adjudication Non-Disclosure BER 97-11
Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Discrimination Capability
Engineer A in BER 97-11 exercised the capability to recognize that a pending ethics complaint — a mere allegation — did not compel automatic disclosure to Client B, correctly distinguishing between an unproven allegation and an adjudicated finding.
BER 97-11: Engineer A retained by Client B while pending ethics complaint from Client C was active with state board
Engineer A's decision not to report the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C to Client B, which the Board found to be ethical
No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice—allegations that could be false, baseless, and motivated by some malicious intent.
Engineer A Authentic Self-Advocacy Disclosure Framing Present Case
Voluntary Disability Disclosure Prudential Consequence Weighing Capability
If Engineer A chooses to disclose, he must exercise the capability to frame the disclosure in a manner that leverages his 25-year performance record as affirmative self-advocacy, minimizing career jeopardy by anchoring the disclosure in demonstrated professional competence
The autism support conference speaker's self-advocacy framework provides Engineer A with a disclosure framing strategy that emphasizes capability and identity rather than 'special needs'
Application of self-advocacy principles from autism support conference speaker to professional disclosure context, integrating performance record into disclosure narrative
Engineer A (present case) — self-advocacy framing dimension
Engineer A would like to be open about his autism
Engineer A BER 97-11 Prudential Background Information Weighing
Prudential Pre-Disclosure Relational Consequence Foresight Capability
Engineer A in BER 97-11 should have exercised the capability to foresee the relational consequences of not providing Client B with limited background information about the pending complaint, recognizing that proactive disclosure would have demonstrated professional responsibility and protected the relationship.
BER 97-11: Engineer A's decision about whether to proactively inform Client B of pending ethics complaint
Board's advisory that Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with limited background information in a dispassionate manner, even though not ethically obligated to do so
Engineer A should weigh all factors and, depending upon the nature and seriousness of the charges, take prudent action, which might include providing Client B with appropriate background information.
By providing Client B with some limited background information, Engineer A would be providing Client B with early notice of the pending matter so that Client B would be able to respond to comments or questions by third parties.
Engineer A Competent Performance Record Materiality Rebuttal Present Case Individual
Competent Performance Record ADA Non-Disclosure Materiality Rebuttal Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that his 25-year record of successful professional engineering practice across multiple employers and four state licenses constitutes affirmative evidence rebutting any claim that non-disclosure of his autism was material to employment decisions.
Engineer A's 25-year career as a PE licensed in four states, practicing competently without disclosure of autism diagnosis
Engineer A's sustained competent professional practice as a PE licensed in four states specializing in air pollution control, demonstrating that autism has not impaired professional performance
the facts relate to a personal condition with little if any apparent impact on the individual's ability to successfully practice engineering
Engineer A Disability-Disclosing Licensed Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (4 states)', 'specialty': 'Air pollution control and air emissions permitting', 'experience': '25 years', 'current_employer_tenure': '5 years', 'disability': "Autism / Asperger's Syndrome", 'disclosure_status': 'Non-disclosed to all employers'}
A PE licensed in four states specializing in air pollution control who has autism (Asperger's Syndrome) and has not disclosed this to current or previous employers. After attending an autism support conference on self-advocacy, Engineer A is deliberating whether voluntary disclosure violates or satisfies the NSPE obligation to avoid deceptive acts, and whether disclosure risks career harm.
{'type': 'employee_of', 'target': 'Current Engineering Employer'}
{'type': 'self_advocacy_influenced_by', 'target': 'Autism Support Conference Speaker'}
{'type': 'subject_to_code', 'target': 'NSPE Code of Ethics'}
Engineer A, a professional engineer licensed in four states, specializes in air pollution control and air emissions permitting
Engineer A considered the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires engineers to 'avoid deceptive acts'
Engineer A has autism and, more specifically, Asperger's Syndrome
Engineer A has kept this fact not only from his current employer (which he has worked for 5 years) but also previous employers
Engineer A NSPE Code Deceptive Acts Norm Competence Present Case
Engineer A must exercise norm competence to correctly retrieve, interpret, and apply the NSPE Code provision requiring engineers to 'avoid deceptive acts' to the specific factual context of non-disclosure of an ADA-protected personal condition
Engineer A's ethical analysis centers on whether his non-disclosure satisfies or violates the NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts
Deliberate consultation of NSPE Code language on deceptive acts in the context of autism non-disclosure decision
Engineer A Non-Compelled Autism Disclosure Analogy to Allegation Non-Disclosure
Engineer A is deliberating whether the NSPE Code's 'avoid deceptive acts' provision compels him to disclose his autism; the analogy to BER Case 97-11 supports the conclusion that disclosure is not compelled.
Non-Compelled Pending Allegation Disclosure Constraint
By analogy to BER Case 97-11, Engineer A is not automatically compelled to disclose his autism diagnosis to current or future employers, because the condition — like a pending allegation — is a personal matter that does not constitute an adjudicated finding of professional unfitness and could be subject to employer bias if disclosed; disclosure remains discretionary and prudential rather than ethically mandatory.
Throughout Engineer A's employment history and at the point of contemplated voluntary disclosure
Engineer A Privacy Right Autism Non-Disclosure Materiality Boundary
Engineer A is weighing whether his non-disclosure of autism constitutes a deceptive act under the NSPE Code, navigating the tension between his recognized privacy right and the materiality-sensitive deception prohibition.
Privacy Right Material Omission Boundary Constraint
Engineer A's right to privacy regarding his autism diagnosis is bounded by the prohibition against omitting material facts in professional representations — requiring Engineer A to assess whether his autism crosses the threshold from legitimately private to materially outcome-determinative in the context of his employment; given his 25-year competent performance record, the condition does not appear to cross that materiality threshold.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Cases 97-11, 03-6, 75-5
Engineer A Self-Advocacy Autonomy Disclosure Decision Present Case
Engineer A is considering whether to voluntarily disclose his autism to his current employer after 25 years of non-disclosure; the decision is his alone to make
Employer / Clients / Ethics Reviewing Body
Engineer Self-Advocacy Autonomy Constraint
Engineer A's employer, clients, and the ethics review system are constrained from penalizing or characterizing as unethical Engineer A's personal decision about whether and when to disclose his autism diagnosis, as this is a personal matter within his sole discretion rather than an ethical matter subject to Code enforcement.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.f; ADA; BER present case
Engineer A certainly has the right to advocate for himself at his sole discretion.
Throughout Engineer A's employment and any future disclosure decision
the essence of this case is more a personal matter than an ethical matter.
Engineer A Self-Advocacy Autonomy Exercise Present Case
Engineer Self-Advocacy Autonomy Recognition and Respect Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize his right to make autonomous decisions about voluntary disclosure of his autism diagnosis, understanding that this is a personal choice rather than an ethical obligation, and that he may advocate for himself at his sole discretion.
Engineer A's ongoing decision about whether to disclose autism diagnosis to current employer of 5 years
Engineer A's deliberate decision not to disclose his autism to employers over 25 years, exercising personal autonomy over private health information
Engineer A Voluntary Autism Disclosure Prudential Consequence Weighing Present Case Individual
Engineer A needs the capability to deliberately weigh the professional and relational consequences of voluntarily disclosing his autism to his current employer of 5 years, including assessing the risk of employer bias, the ADA protections available, and the self-advocacy benefits identified at the autism support conference.
Engineer A's consideration of voluntary autism disclosure to current employer after attending autism support conference
Engineer A's deliberation about whether to disclose his autism diagnosis to his current employer, prompted by the autism support conference speaker's encouragement to share who they are
Engineer A choosing not to disclose complaint to Client B before Client B learning of complaint through another party
Engineer A did not believe it was necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint. Later, through another party, Client B learned of the ethics complaint
Engineer A choosing not to disclose complaint to Client B
Client B learning of complaint through another party
Engineer F Non-Engineering License Revocation Disclosure Obligation BER 03-6
Non-Engineering License Revocation Employment Disclosure Scope Capability
Engineer F lacked the capability to recognize that the employment application's question about disciplinary history extended beyond engineering licensure to include revocation of his contractor's license, which reflected adjudicated professional misconduct relevant to his character and integrity.
BER 03-6: Engineer F applied for PE position and answered 'no' to disciplinary history question, failing to disclose contractor's license revocation
Engineer F's failure to disclose contractor's license revocation on engineering firm employment application, which the Board found to be an ethical violation
Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application.
it should have been equally clear to Engineer F that the employer's questions sought to elicit information concerning Engineer F's character, integrity, and credibility as a professional engineer
Engineer F submitting employment application with negative response before engineering firm learning of contractor's license revocation
Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application. Later, the engineering firm learned that...Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked
Engineer F submitting employment application with negative response
engineering firm learning of contractor's license revocation
Engineer F's professional standing is compromised; a clear ethical violation is established; the case becomes a negative precedent illustrating what active deception looks like in a professional employment context
BER Case 03-6 (2003), referenced in current case discussion
In BER Case 03-6, Engineer F's false response on an employment application, denying involvement in a matter under investigation, became known, constituting an active misrepresentation that stands in contrast to Engineer A's passive non-disclosure.
Engineer F's contractor's license revocation before Engineer F's application for professional engineering position
Previously, Engineer F was the owner of a fire sprinkler contracting firm...Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked...On the engineering firm employment application, a question asks whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined'
Engineer F's contractor's license revocation
Engineer F's application for professional engineering position
{'application_question': 'Whether the engineer has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked'}
The engineering firm that received Engineer F's employment application, which included a question about prior disciplinary action in professional engineering practice. The firm later discovered Engineer F's contractor's license had been revoked, a fact omitted from the application.
{'type': 'prospective_employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer BER 03-6'}
Engineer F was a professional engineer and applied for a professional engineering position with an engineering firm
Later, the engineering firm learned that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked
On the engineering firm employment application, a question asks whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?'
Engineer A transitions from a state of stable non-disclosure to a state of active ethical uncertainty; the NSPE Code's 'avoid deceptive acts' provision becomes personally salient for the first time
During or immediately following the autism support conference
As a result of the speaker's advocacy, Engineer A experienced a state of ethical uncertainty about whether his long-standing non-disclosure constituted a violation of the NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts. This is an internal psychological outcome, not a decision.
Faithful Agent Disclosure Scope Limitation Engineer A Autism Non-Disclosure Present Case
Engineer A's faithful agent duty is invoked as a potential basis for requiring disclosure; the Board must determine whether the duty extends to personal medical conditions
The faithful agent and trustee duty owed by Engineer A to his employer and clients does not extend to compelled disclosure of his autism diagnosis, because the condition is not material to his professional fitness as demonstrated by 25 years of competent practice, and the privacy boundary has not been crossed into material omission territory.
NSPE Code of Ethics — faithful agent/trustee provisions; BER present case; ADA
while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client, avoid deceptive acts, be objective and truthful, avoid conflicts, etc., such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed against the engineer with the state engineering licensure board.
The facts indicate that Engineer A functioned as a professional engineer and had a successful professional career, practicing competently, as required by the NSPE Code of Ethics.
False Employment Application Response by Engineer F
If the contractor's license revocation were discovered, it would appear as deliberate concealment rather than a technical distinction
The employer's broader intent, to assess character and integrity, would be frustrated by the narrow interpretation
Employer's right to assess character and credibility of prospective employees
Honesty and integrity in professional representations
Secure employment at the engineering firm by providing a technically narrow answer to the disciplinary question, reasoning that the revoked license was a contractor's license rather than a professional engineering license
Judgment about materiality of prior professional actions to prospective employer
2003, during employment application process
Obligation to disclose information material to employer's assessment of character and integrity
Obligation to provide truthful information on employment applications
In BER Case 03-6, Engineer F deliberately answered 'no' on an engineering firm employment application when asked about prior license disciplinary actions, concealing the revocation of his contractor's license while technically distinguishing it from his engineering license.
False Employment Application Response by Engineer F (Action 7) → Engineer F's False Statement Discovered (Event 7)
Engineer F deliberately answered 'no' on an engineering firm employment application denying involvement in a prior disciplinary matter, and this false response was subsequently discovered, triggering BER Case 03-6 and establishing an affirmative deception precedent distinguishable from passive non-disclosure
False Employment Application Response by Engineer F (Action 7)
Had Engineer F answered truthfully or left the question blank, no false statement violation would have occurred; had the false statement not been discovered, no BER case would have been triggered, removing a key precedent from the current analysis
Engineer F's False Statement Discovered (Event 7)
Discovery mechanism that surfaced the discrepancy between the false answer and actual history
Engineer F's deliberate false answer on the employment application
The employment application's direct question about disciplinary history
The existence of a prior disciplinary matter that Engineer F was obligated to truthfully report
Affirmative false statement on a formal employment document + existence of contradicting factual record + discovery process was sufficient to establish an ethics violation finding
The analytical frame expands from Engineer A's specific situation to a broader jurisprudential context; historical cases provide the normative scaffolding against which Engineer A's conduct is measured
During BER case analysis (discussion phase), referencing cases from 1975, 1997, and 2003
Three prior BER cases from 1975, 1997, and 2003 involving deception and disclosure obligations were introduced into the current analysis as contextualizing precedents. Their emergence as relevant comparators is an automatic outcome of the BER's standard analogical reasoning process.
Establishment of a long-term pattern of non-disclosure that could later be characterized as deceptive
Potential future tension between personal privacy and professional ethics obligations
Competent practice of engineering (condition did not impair performance)
Protection of own legal rights under disability protections
ADA legal protections against disability discrimination
Personal right to privacy regarding medical conditions
Secure employment and avoid potential bias or discrimination based on a neurological condition that Engineer A did not believe affected his professional capabilities
Arguably NSPE Code 'avoid deceptive acts' under a broad interpretation, though the Board ultimately rejected this framing for medical conditions unrelated to engineering practice
Judgment about relevance of personal information to professional role
At the start of his engineering career, Engineer A made a deliberate decision not to disclose his Asperger's Syndrome to his first employer(s), establishing a persistent pattern of non-disclosure that would carry forward across multiple employers over 25 years.
Initial Non-Disclosure of Autism (Action 1) → 25-Year Career Without Disclosure (Event 1)
Engineer A made a deliberate decision not to disclose his Asperger's Syndrome at the start of his engineering career, resulting in successfully practicing engineering across multiple employers for 25 years without his condition being known
Initial Non-Disclosure of Autism (Action 1)
Had Engineer A disclosed at career outset, the 25-year undisclosed career trajectory would not have occurred; alternatively, had any employer discovered or mandated disclosure, the chain would have been interrupted
25-Year Career Without Disclosure (Event 1)
Absence of any legal or regulatory mandate requiring disclosure
Deliberate initial decision to withhold Asperger's diagnosis
Engineer A's functional competence in performing engineering duties
No employer inquiry or discovery of the condition across multiple workplaces
Combination of volitional non-disclosure + professional competence + no external disclosure trigger was sufficient to sustain undisclosed status across a 25-year career
National Society of Professional Engineers
practicing competently, as required by the NSPE Code of Ethics
Engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination
language in the NSPE Code of Ethics relating to the 'avoidance of deception'
the newest addition to the NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.f
Board of Ethical Review in evaluating Engineer A's disclosure obligations and rights
Primary normative framework for the case; specifically the 'avoid deceptive acts' obligation, the faithful agent/trustee duty, and the newly added non-discrimination provision (Section III.1.f) requiring engineers to treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination.
Current version including Section III.1.f
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
Engineer A in personal ethical deliberation about disability disclosure
Engineer A directly consulted the NSPE Code of Ethics and specifically its requirement that engineers 'avoid deceptive acts' when deliberating whether non-disclosure of his autism diagnosis to his employer constitutes an ethical violation.
Current edition (as consulted by Engineer A)
NSPE Code Section III.1.f Dignity Non-Discrimination Engineer A Employer Clients
Engineer A fears bias from his employer and clients if he discloses his autism; NSPE Code Section III.1.f's newest addition directly addresses this concern
NSPE Code Section III.1.f Dignity Non-Discrimination Constraint
Engineer A's employer and clients are constrained by NSPE Code Section III.1.f to treat Engineer A with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination based on his autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis, prohibiting adverse professional treatment grounded in disability bias.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.f; Americans with Disabilities Act
Throughout Engineer A's employment and professional relationships
Non-Compelled Pending Allegation Disclosure BER 97-11 Engineer A Client B
Engineer A was performing design services for Client B while a pending ethics complaint from Client C (alleging incompetence on a similar project) was under review by the state board
Engineer A in BER 97-11 was not automatically compelled to disclose to Client B the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C, because the complaint was a mere allegation not amounting to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.
During rendering of services to Client B while ethics complaint was pending
Non-Disclosure Decision by BER Case 97-11 Engineer
Professional Engineer providing design services
Client B could learn of the complaint through other channels and feel deceived by the omission
Non-disclosure could be perceived as a lack of transparency, damaging trust if the complaint became known
Protection of own professional reputation from potentially baseless allegations
NSPE Code: act as faithful agent and trustee for client
Protection against compelled self-incrimination on unproven allegations
Continue providing services to Client B without disruption, avoiding premature disclosure of an unresolved and potentially baseless complaint that could damage the professional relationship
Arguably the spirit of full transparency with clients, though Board found no ethical violation
Board suggested Engineer A should have considered providing limited background information proactively
Professional judgment about disclosure obligations
In BER Case 97-11, Engineer A (a different engineer) deliberately chose not to proactively inform Client B about a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C, making a judgment that the unresolved allegation did not rise to the level of required disclosure.
Continued non-disclosure creates a foundation that, if later revealed, could be perceived as a long-standing omission
Limits Engineer A's ability to request accommodations if ever needed without revealing prior non-disclosure
Competent and successful engineering practice over the subsequent 5 years
No material harm to employer or clients attributable to the non-disclosed condition
Relevance of disclosed information to professional performance
Secure current employment without triggering potential bias or discrimination from a new employer unfamiliar with his track record
Potentially NSPE Code 'avoid deceptive acts' under a broad reading, though Board discussion distinguishes this from conduct-related concealment
Judgment about relevance of personal health information to professional role
Knowledge of employment law and professional ethics obligations
5 years ago, at onboarding with current employer
Five years ago, when accepting his current position, Engineer A again deliberately chose not to disclose his Asperger's Syndrome, continuing the established pattern of non-disclosure with full awareness of his condition and its concealment.
Non-Disclosure at Current Employer (Action 2) combined with Deliberating Whether to Disclose (Action 5) → Continued Non-Disclosure Outcome at Current Employer (Event 2) transitioning to active ethical deliberation
Engineer A again deliberately chose not to disclose when accepting his current position five years ago, and over those five years the non-disclosure persisted; however, Engineer A is now actively deliberating whether to voluntarily disclose, marking a potential inflection point in the established non-disclosure pattern
Non-Disclosure at Current Employer (Action 2) combined with Deliberating Whether to Disclose (Action 5)
Without the conference attendance, Engineer A would likely have continued non-disclosure indefinitely without deliberation; without the BER privacy conclusion, Engineer A might have faced a perceived ethical obligation to disclose immediately
Continued Non-Disclosure Outcome at Current Employer (Event 2) transitioning to active ethical deliberation
Absence of any employer-initiated inquiry or discovery in the intervening five years
BER's privacy-not-deception conclusion providing ethical permission structure for either choice
Deliberate non-disclosure decision at time of hiring five years ago
Engineer A's continued functional competence removing performance-based disclosure triggers
The conference attendance and resulting ethical doubt as the catalyst for current deliberation
Five-year non-disclosure pattern + conference-triggered ethical doubt + BER framework consultation together created the conditions sufficient for Engineer A to face a genuine, informed disclosure decision point
Omission Materiality Threshold Invoked for ADA Condition Non-Disclosure
Engineer A's non-disclosure of autism to employer and clients
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Engineer A's non-disclosure of his autism diagnosis does not constitute an unethical omission because the condition has little if any apparent impact on his ability to practice engineering — it is not material to the professional competence assessment that employers and clients legitimately rely upon
Materiality for disclosure purposes is assessed by reference to the professional competence and qualification information that employers and clients legitimately need; personal medical conditions that do not impair demonstrated competence fall below the materiality threshold
Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
the facts relate to a personal condition with little if any apparent impact on the individual's ability to successfully practice engineering.
The non-material nature of the autism condition relative to professional competence means no disclosure obligation arises; the omission is ethically permissible
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction BER 75-5 General Application
BER 75-5 is cited as background precedent establishing that personal misconduct can fall within the Code's scope, but the present case distinguishes personal conditions from personal misconduct
Code of Ethics Universal Applicability Constraint
Under BER 75-5, personal misconduct unrelated to the direct practice of engineering is nonetheless subject to the NSPE Code of Ethics when it reflects on the engineer's integrity, honesty, and fitness for practice — constraining engineers from treating personal conduct as categorically exempt from ethics code review.
personal misconduct of the kind indicated in this case is subject to the Code of Ethics and may be dealt with accordingly under the code in addition to whatever action may be appropriate by legal authorities.
Personal Privacy Right Invoked for Engineer A Autism Non-Disclosure
Engineer A's non-disclosure of autism (Asperger's Syndrome) to current and prior employers and clients
Ethics Code Deception Provision Scope Limitation
Engineer A retains a personal right to privacy with respect to his autism diagnosis and is not ethically required to disclose it to his employer or clients, because the condition is a personal matter protected by the ADA that does not impair his demonstrated professional competence
The personal privacy right encompasses ADA-protected medical conditions that are unrelated to professional competence deficiency; the ethics code does not override legally protected privacy rights in this domain
Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
Privacy right prevails because the undisclosed fact is personal, ADA-protected, and has no demonstrated impact on professional competence — the ethics code's deception provision does not reach this category of non-disclosure
Engineer A's condition is clearly protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Professional Competence Demonstrated By Engineer A Despite Autism
Assessment of whether autism impairs professional qualification
Engineer A's 25-year successful practice as a licensed PE in four states, specializing in air pollution control, demonstrates that his autism has not impaired his professional competence, which is the operative standard for assessing whether non-disclosure of his condition constitutes an ethical violation
Professional competence is the relevant standard for evaluating whether a personal condition must be disclosed; demonstrated competence over an extended career is the best evidence that a personal condition does not constitute a professional qualification deficiency
Engineer A Present Case Disability-Disclosing Licensed Engineer
Demonstrated competence resolves the tension in favor of non-disclosure permissibility; the competence principle supports rather than undermines the privacy right in this case
Professional Competence Demonstrated by Engineer A
Engineer A's professional practice record as basis for distinguishing his case from cases involving competence-impairing conditions
Non-Discrimination and Equal Dignity in Professional Engineering Relations
Engineer A's successful professional career as a PE licensed in four states, practicing competently in air pollution control, demonstrates that his autism diagnosis does not impair his professional competence — the competence standard is met through demonstrated performance, not through the absence of personal characteristics
Professional competence is assessed by demonstrated performance and outcomes, not by personal characteristics or diagnoses; an engineer who practices competently satisfies the competence principle regardless of personal attributes
Demonstrated competence is the relevant standard; because Engineer A meets it, his personal condition is irrelevant to the competence inquiry and does not generate any disclosure obligation
What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
Does the NSPE Code's duty to avoid deceptive acts impose any affirmative obligation on Engineer A to disclose medical or disability information that was never solicited by an employer, or does the provision only prohibit active misrepresentation?
How does the Americans with Disabilities Act's prohibition on employer inquiries into disability status interact with any ethical duty Engineer A might have to disclose his autism diagnosis, and does the legal protection against such inquiries effectively resolve the ethical tension Engineer A perceives?
If Engineer A's employer were to learn of the autism diagnosis through a third party rather than through Engineer A's own voluntary disclosure, would the prior non-disclosure retroactively constitute a deceptive act under the NSPE Code, particularly given that the non-disclosure spanned 25 years and multiple employers?
Does the NSPE Code's requirement that engineers treat all persons with dignity, respect, and without discrimination create any obligation on Engineer A's employer to accommodate potential disclosure, and should the Board have addressed the employer's ethical duties alongside Engineer A's?
Does the principle of personal medical privacy, which is implicitly protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act and general employment law, conflict with the NSPE Code's broad injunction to conduct oneself honorably and avoid deceptive acts, and if so, which principle should take precedence when an engineer has never been directly asked about a disability?
Does the self-advocacy principle promoted at the autism support conference — that autistic individuals should disclose who they are and be treated with respect rather than as persons with special needs — conflict with the NSPE Code's implicit recognition that engineers are not obligated to volunteer personal medical information, and how should Engineer A weigh a community-based ethical norm against a professional code standard?
Does the principle of honorable and responsible professional conduct under the NSPE Code create a tension with the principle of non-discrimination when an engineer's fear of employer bias — itself a potential Code violation by the employer — is the very reason the engineer chooses not to disclose, effectively forcing Engineer A to choose between self-protection and full transparency?
Does the Non-Discrimination and Equal Dignity principle owed to Engineer A by his employer and clients conflict with the Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction principle, in the sense that applying the NSPE Code's deception provision to compel disclosure of an ADA-protected condition would itself constitute a form of discriminatory overreach that the code's dignity provision is designed to prevent?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's 25-year non-disclosure of his autism diagnosis constitute a breach of the duty to avoid deceptive acts, or does the absence of an affirmative duty to disclose medical information mean that silence is categorically distinct from deception under the NSPE Code?
From a deontological perspective, how does the duty articulated in NSPE Code provision III.1.f — to treat all persons with dignity, respect, and fairness — apply to Engineer A's employer and potential future employers when they hold biases about autism, and does that duty create a corresponding obligation on Engineer A's part to withhold information that could trigger discriminatory treatment?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the aggregate professional and social outcome — a 25-year record of competent, successful engineering practice without harm to clients, employers, or the public — justify Engineer A's ongoing non-disclosure, and does that track record itself serve as evidence that the non-disclosure produced net positive consequences relative to disclosure?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A's deliberate, reflective engagement with the NSPE Code and the autism self-advocacy framework — rather than acting out of fear or convenience alone — demonstrate the kind of professional integrity and practical wisdom that characterizes an honorable engineer, regardless of which disclosure decision he ultimately makes?
If Engineer A had disclosed his autism diagnosis at the outset of his career 25 years ago, would the NSPE Code's 'avoid deceptive acts' provision have ever become a source of ethical tension, and would the self-advocacy framework presented at the conference have been unnecessary to prompt his current deliberation?
What if Engineer A's autism had at some point materially affected a client deliverable or a professional judgment call — would the Board's conclusion that non-disclosure does not constitute deception still hold, or would the existence of a concrete harm have shifted the ethical analysis toward an affirmative duty to disclose relevant personal limitations?
If Engineer A's situation were analogous to that of Engineer F in BER Case 03-6 — where a false affirmative statement was made on an employment application rather than a simple omission — would the Board's ethical conclusion change, and what does the contrast between those two scenarios reveal about where the line between permissible privacy and impermissible deception actually lies?
What if Engineer A's current employer, upon learning of the autism diagnosis through a third party rather than from Engineer A directly, perceived the long silence as a deliberate concealment and initiated adverse employment action — would the Americans with Disabilities Act protections and the NSPE Code's dignity provision together have been sufficient to protect Engineer A, and does that risk scenario change the ethical calculus around proactive voluntary disclosure?
Engineer A's internal equilibrium regarding non-disclosure is disrupted; a normative external voice introduces the possibility that his silence may be ethically problematic; self-reflection process is initiated
At the autism support conference (recent, specific point in time)
At the autism support conference Engineer A attended, a speaker publicly advocated for self-disclosure of autism diagnoses. This external communication event introduced a normative claim into Engineer A's awareness that he had not previously encountered in a professional ethics framing.
all three historical BER cases (1975, 1997, 2003) before present case involving Engineer A's Asperger's disclosure dilemma
Previous Board of Ethical Review cases provide some background for considering this case...Turning to the facts in the present case, the Board finds a clear distinction between the earlier BER cases
all three historical BER cases (1975, 1997, 2003)
present case involving Engineer A's Asperger's disclosure dilemma
autism support conference attendance before Engineer A's ethical deliberation about non-disclosure
Engineer A recently attended an autism support conference...After considerable thought, Engineer A considered the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics
Engineer A's ethical deliberation about non-disclosure
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
The Board was constrained to correctly distinguish Engineer A's non-disclosure of his autism — a personal condition unrelated to engineering conduct — from the conduct-based concealment at issue in BER Cases 75-5 and 03-6, prohibiting the application of those precedents' disclosure standards to Engineer A's personal medical condition.
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
BER 75-5's broad jurisdictional principle is distinguished in the present case: personal misconduct that implicates character falls within the code, but ADA-protected personal conditions that do not impair competence do not constitute misconduct and thus remain outside the code's deception provision
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
The scope limitation resolves the apparent tension between honesty/non-deception and personal privacy in favor of privacy, by clarifying that the deception provision was never intended to reach ADA-protected personal conditions
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
The allegation-adjudication distinction resolves the tension in favor of non-disclosure for unproven complaints, while preserving the prudential option of providing limited background information
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.79
Prudential disclosure is framed as advisable but not obligatory — the engineer retains discretion, but the prudent choice favors proactive limited disclosure to protect the professional relationship
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.78
The anti-discrimination norm supports Engineer A's privacy choice by confirming that bias-based adverse treatment would itself be an ethics code violation — the privacy right and the anti-discrimination norm are mutually reinforcing in this context
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
Privacy right prevails because autism has not impaired demonstrated competence; non-disclosure does not create a material misrepresentation of professional qualification
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
The self-advocacy principle does not override the privacy right but complements it: both disclosure and non-disclosure are ethically permissible; the choice belongs to Engineer A as an autonomous professional
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
The principle does not resolve the tension determinately — it identifies disclosure as prudentially advisable in some circumstances while acknowledging the legitimacy of the privacy right; Engineer A must exercise personal judgment
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
Honesty obligation is satisfied by the absence of affirmative misrepresentation; the materiality threshold for disclosure is not met because autism has not impaired demonstrated professional competence
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.83
Engineer A's contemplated voluntary disclosure of autism after 25 years of non-disclosure creates a foreseeable relational and professional vulnerability — specifically, that the employer may react adversely to the retroactive nature of the disclosure even if the condition itself would not have precluded employment — constraining Engineer A to weigh not only the immediate risk of disclosure but also the downstream relational consequences of the employer perceiving the long non-disclosure as a breach of trust.
The Board was constrained from interpreting the NSPE Code's 'avoidance of deception' provision so broadly as to require Engineer A to disclose his autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis, because that condition has no apparent impact on his engineering competence and its non-disclosure does not constitute deceptive conduct under the Code.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.86
employment at current employer (5 years) finishes total engineering career (25 years)
Engineer A...has practiced professional engineering successfully for 25 years for multiple employers...which he has worked for 5 years
employment at current employer (5 years)
Entity1 and Entity2 end at the same time, Entity2 starts first
employment at previous employers before employment at current employer
ethics complaint filed by Client C during Engineer A rendering services to Client B
During the rendering of services to Client B, the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A about an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
Engineer A rendering services to Client B
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
non-disclosure of Asperger's Syndrome equals entire 25-year engineering career
Engineer A has kept this fact not only from his current employer (which he has worked for 5 years) but also previous employers...has practiced professional engineering successfully for 25 years
Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times
Engineer A's non-disclosure of his autism falls below the materiality threshold for an ethically obligatory disclosure because his 25-year record of successful professional practice demonstrates that the condition has not impaired his profe
Engineer A's 25-year non-disclosure of his autism diagnosis to employers does not constitute a deceptive act under the NSPE Code because autism is a personal characteristic, not a demonstrated professional qualification deficiency, and Engi
Engineer A's silence about his autism does not violate the NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts because he has not made any affirmative misrepresentation; the 'avoid deceptive acts' standard requires more than mere non-disclosure of a
Engineer A's deliberation about whether to voluntarily disclose his autism to his current employer — motivated by the self-advocacy conference and his own desire for openness — reflects the prudential dimension of voluntary disclosure: whil
The self-advocacy conference speaker's call to treat autistic individuals with respect — not as persons with 'special needs' — invokes professional dignity: Engineer A's professional standing should be assessed on the basis of his demonstra
The self-advocacy conference and Engineer A's desire to be open about his autism represent the affirmative right — though not obligation — to voluntarily disclose personal identity characteristics as an expression of authentic professional
The Board found that Engineer A was not ethically required to disclose a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C to Client B, because the complaint was a mere allegation — not an adjudicated finding — and compelling disclosure of unprove
The Board noted that while Engineer A was not ethically obligated to disclose the pending complaint, Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with limited background information in a dispassionate manner — doing so would have demon
In BER 03-6, Engineer F's contractor's license revocation — an adjudicated fact — triggered a disclosure obligation on the employment application, even though the question asked about engineering license discipline, because the revocation c
Engineer A's autism, as an ADA-protected condition, is not subject to mandatory disclosure under the NSPE Code of Ethics; the legal framework protecting persons with disabilities from employer inquiry and discrimination reinforces the ethic
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that his 25-year non-disclosure of his autism (Asperger's Syndrome) to current and prior employers does not constitute a 'deceptive act' under NSPE Code III.2.a, provided he has made no affirmative misre
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that his 25-year record of successful professional engineering practice across multiple employers and four state licensures constitutes affirmative evidence that his autism has not impaired his professio
Engineer A is obligated to carefully and deliberately weigh the professional consequences of voluntarily disclosing his autism to his current employer — including the risk of employer bias and career limitation — against the personal benefi
Engineer A, if he chooses to voluntarily disclose his autism to his current employer, should frame the disclosure in a manner that leverages his 25-year performance record as evidence of competence, thereby maximizing the relational self-pr
Engineer A's employer, clients, and the ethics review system are obligated to recognize that Engineer A's decision to disclose or not disclose his autism is a matter of personal autonomy and self-advocacy at his sole discretion, and that th
Engineer A's employer and clients are obligated under NSPE Code Section III.1.f to treat Engineer A with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination based on his autism diagnosis, and may not take adverse action based on bias or
Engineer A's current employer is obligated to refrain from taking adverse employment action against Engineer A based on bias or unfounded concerns about his autism if he voluntarily discloses, given his 5-year record of competent service an
The Board was obligated to refrain from interpreting the NSPE Code's 'avoidance of deception' provision so broadly as to require Engineer A to disclose his autism diagnosis to his employer, recognizing that such an interpretation would give
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C constituted a mere allegation — not an adjudicated finding — and therefore was not automatically required to disclose it to Client B, while retaining
Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with limited, dispassionate background information about the pending ethics complaint so that Client B could respond to third-party inquiries and so that Engineer A could demonstrate profess
Engineer F was obligated to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license on the engineering firm employment application, because the employer's question sought character and integrity information, and the contractor license revocatio
The Board was obligated to correctly distinguish Engineer A's non-disclosure of his autism — a personal condition unrelated to engineering conduct — from the concealment of engineering-practice-related conduct at issue in BER 97-11 and BER
{'relationship_duration': '5 years', 'knowledge_of_disability': 'None', 'specialty_context': 'Air pollution control engineering'}
The engineering firm that has employed Engineer A for 5 years without knowledge of his autism diagnosis. Represents the primary source of career jeopardy risk that Engineer A fears upon disclosure, particularly regarding potential biases about client interactions.
{'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Disability-Disclosing Licensed Engineer'}
Engineering Employer with Disability Bias Risk
his current employer (which he has worked for 5 years)
Engineer A Prudential Retroactive Disclosure Career Jeopardy Constraint
Engineer A is concerned that voluntary disclosure after 5 years with current employer and 25 years total non-disclosure could place his career in jeopardy, particularly if employers have biases or concerns about client interactions.
Prudential Pre-Employment Disclosure Relational Risk Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics; Prudential professional ethics norms
because Engineer A obtained his employment without disclosing his autism, Engineer A is concerned that doing so might place his career in jeopardy.
At the point of Engineer A's contemplated voluntary disclosure to current employer
At the least, disclosure could limit his career options if his employer and potential future employers have biases or concerns about client interactions.
Engineering Employer with Disability Bias Risk Present Case
{'bias_risk': 'Potential bias upon disclosure of ADA-protected condition', 'legal_framework': 'Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)', 'nspe_obligation': 'NSPE Code Section III.1.f — treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination'}
Engineer A's employer and clients who may harbor bias against Engineer A upon learning of the ADA-protected personal condition, motivating Engineer A's decision not to disclose. The BER's analysis of NSPE Code Section III.1.f on dignity and non-discrimination is directly implicated.
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A Present Case Disability-Disclosing Licensed Engineer'}
Engineer A perceived the potential for bias on the part of Engineer A's employer and clients despite the fact that Engineer A's condition is clearly protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Ethics Code Deception Provision Scope Limitation Present Case Engineer A Autism
Engineer A has practiced engineering competently for 25 years without disclosing his autism diagnosis; the Board must determine whether non-disclosure constitutes deception under the NSPE Code
Ethics Reviewing Body / NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Ethics Code Deception Provision Scope Limitation Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics — 'avoid deceptive acts' provision; BER Case present; ADA
Throughout ethics review of Engineer A's case
the facts of the present case demonstrate no effort to conceal any conduct relating to the practice of engineering or related fields.
Present Case Engineer A ADA Non-Discrimination Dignity Obligation on Employer
Engineer A perceived the potential for bias on the part of his employer and clients upon disclosure of his autism, despite the condition being ADA-protected and his having practiced competently for 25 years. The Board cited NSPE Code Section III.1.f as directly relevant.
Engineer A's current employer and clients
ADA-Protected Condition Non-Discrimination Employer Dignity Obligation
Engineer A's employer and clients are obligated under NSPE Code Section III.1.f to treat Engineer A with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination based on his autism diagnosis, and may not take adverse action based on bias or unfounded assumptions about his capabilities given his 25-year record of competent practice.
Upon any disclosure of Engineer A's autism diagnosis to employer or clients
Present Case Engineer A Self-Advocacy Autonomy Right Recognition
Engineer A is considering whether to voluntarily disclose his autism after attending a self-advocacy conference. The Board affirmed that this is a personal decision, not an ethical obligation, and that Engineer A retains the right to privacy regarding aspects of his condition that do not affect his engineering practice.
Engineering employers, ethics bodies, and professional organizations in relation to Engineer A
Engineer Self-Advocacy Autonomy Non-Interference Obligation
Engineer A's employer, clients, and the ethics review system are obligated to recognize that Engineer A's decision to disclose or not disclose his autism is a matter of personal autonomy and self-advocacy at his sole discretion, and that the NSPE Code of Ethics cannot be used to compel disclosure of this personal condition.
Ongoing — applicable to Engineer A's disclosure deliberation and any future disclosure decisions
At the same time, Engineer A has a personal right to privacy and, for whatever reason, the right to not communicate aspects of his condition that do not appear to affect his ability to practice engineering.
{'context': 'Autism support conference', 'message': 'Self-advocacy and respectful treatment for autistic individuals'}
A speaker at an autism support conference who presented on self-advocacy, encouraging autistic individuals to share who they are and what they can do, and emphasizing the right to be treated with respect rather than as someone with 'special needs.' This presentation catalyzed Engineer A's ethical deliberation.
{'type': 'influenced', 'target': 'Engineer A Disability-Disclosing Licensed Engineer'}
One of the speakers presented on self-advocacy, which encourages autistic individuals, when able, to share who they are and what they can do
The speaker noted that a person with autism needs to be treated with respect and not as someone with 'special needs'
Throughout Engineer A's 25-year career, including 5 years with current employer, persisting to present
Disability Non-Disclosure Employment State
Engineer A's undisclosed autism/Asperger's Syndrome diagnosis relative to current and prior employers
Not yet terminated; Engineer A is actively deliberating whether to disclose
Engineer A's decision at the outset of his career not to disclose his autism diagnosis to employers
From conference attendance through present deliberation
After considerable thought, Engineer A considered the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires engineers to 'avoid deceptive acts'
Engineer A's simultaneous obligations under NSPE Code to avoid deception, his personal right to medical privacy, and his self-advocacy ethical commitment
Engineer A would like to be open about his autism, but because Engineer A obtained his employment without disclosing his autism, Engineer A is concerned that doing so might place his career in jeopardy
Exposure to self-advocacy principles at autism support conference combined with reflection on NSPE Code obligations
Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer BER 03-6
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'prior_role': 'Owner of fire sprinkler contracting firm', 'contractor_license_status': 'Revoked for allowing unlicensed individual to use contractor license number'}
Engineer F applied for a PE position at an engineering firm and answered 'no' to a question about prior disciplinary action, failing to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license (not his PE license). The BER found he had an ethical obligation to disclose this revocation as it bore on his character and integrity.
{'type': 'applicant_to', 'target': 'Engineering Firm Hiring Authority BER 03-6'}
Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer
Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he had allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number
The Board of Ethical Review determined that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor's license
Professional Dignity Invoked For Engineer A Self-Advocacy
Employer and client treatment of Engineer A upon potential disclosure
Self-advocacy movement's framing of disability identity in professional contexts
Employer discretion in hiring and retention
The self-advocacy conference speaker's call to treat autistic individuals with respect — not as persons with 'special needs' — invokes professional dignity: Engineer A's professional standing should be assessed on the basis of his demonstrated competence and contributions, not reduced to a disability label that triggers bias
Professional dignity requires that engineers be evaluated as professionals on the basis of their competence and conduct; personal characteristics, including neurodevelopmental differences, do not legitimately diminish professional standing when competence is demonstrated
Dignity norm supports the conclusion that employer bias based on autism would be illegitimate; it also supports Engineer A's right to self-disclose on his own terms rather than being compelled to disclose or conceal
Personal Condition vs Engineering Conduct Distinction Present Case BER Contrast
Board must distinguish between prior cases involving concealment of engineering-related conduct (contractor license revocation, personal misconduct) and the present case involving non-disclosure of a personal disability
Personal Condition vs. Engineering Conduct Concealment Distinction Constraint
BER Cases 75-5, 03-6, and present case; NSPE Code of Ethics
The facts of the earlier cases indicate an effort to conceal conduct on the part of the individual or associates relating to the practice of engineering or related fields. In contrast, the facts of the present case demonstrate no effort to conceal any conduct relating to the practice of engineering or related fields.
Instead, the facts relate to a personal condition with little if any apparent impact on the individual's ability to successfully practice engineering.
ADA-Protected Condition Non-Disclosure Permissibility Applied To Engineer A
NSPE Code 'avoid deceptive acts' interpretation in disability context
Non-disclosure of autism diagnosis to employers
Engineer A's autism, as an ADA-protected condition, is not subject to mandatory disclosure under the NSPE Code of Ethics; the legal framework protecting persons with disabilities from employer inquiry and discrimination reinforces the ethical permissibility of non-disclosure, particularly where 25 years of demonstrated competent practice shows no qualification impairment
The ADA's protection of disability status from mandatory employer disclosure aligns with and reinforces the NSPE Code's non-requirement of disclosing personal characteristics that do not constitute professional qualification deficiencies; the legal and ethical frameworks converge on permissibility of non-disclosure
ADA-Protected Condition Non-Disclosure Permissibility Principle
ADA protection and demonstrated competence together establish that non-disclosure is both legally protected and ethically permissible; the 'avoid deceptive acts' standard is not violated by silence on a legally protected personal characteristic
Engineer A has practiced professional engineering successfully for 25 years for multiple employers.
Allegation-Adjudication Distinction Invoked in BER 03-6 Discussion
Engineer F's failure to disclose contractor license revocation on engineering employment application
In BER 03-6, Engineer F's contractor's license revocation — an adjudicated fact — triggered a disclosure obligation on the employment application, even though the question asked about engineering license discipline, because the revocation constituted a verified fact about Engineer F's character and integrity as a professional that employers have a legitimate interest in knowing
An adjudicated license revocation — even of a contractor's license rather than an engineering license — constitutes a verified fact about professional character that falls within the disclosure obligation, distinguishing it from unproven allegations
Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
The adjudicated nature of the revocation and its character-implicating significance override any claim of non-disclosure permissibility; the employer's question about discipline was interpreted as seeking character information broadly
while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he had allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
Engineer A 25-Year Performance Record Materiality Rebuttal Present Case
Engineer A's sustained competent performance record is the primary factual basis for concluding that his non-disclosure of autism does not constitute a material omission or deceptive act under the NSPE Code.
Competent Performance Record Materiality Rebuttal Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that his 25-year record of successful professional engineering practice across multiple employers and four state licensures constitutes affirmative evidence that his autism has not impaired his professional performance, placing his non-disclosure below the materiality threshold for ethically obligatory disclosure under the NSPE Code.
Assessed at the time of the ethical deliberation following the autism support conference
Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer BER 97-11
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Design services including CPM scheduling for manufacturing facility', 'complaint_status': 'Pending ethics complaint filed by Client C'}
Engineer A was retained by Client B for design services while a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C was active with the state board; Engineer A chose not to disclose the complaint to Client B, which the BER found ethical given that a complaint is a mere allegation and not a finding of fact.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client B BER 97-11'}
{'type': 'complainant_client', 'target': 'Client C BER 97-11'}
Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
Engineer A was retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a critical path method schedule for a manufacturing facility
Engineer A did not believe it was necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
The Board found that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C
Engineer A Privacy vs Deception Tension State
Activated upon Engineer A's reflection on the NSPE Code language following the conference; ongoing
Privacy Right vs. Material Omission Tension State
Engineer A's tension between his right to medical privacy regarding autism and the NSPE Code duty to avoid deceptive acts
Resolution of disclosure decision or authoritative ethical guidance
Engineer A's deliberate consideration of NSPE Code language on 'deceptive acts' in relation to his non-disclosure of autism
Omission Materiality Threshold Applied To Autism Non-Disclosure
Autism diagnosis non-disclosure in employment context
Engineer A's non-disclosure of his autism falls below the materiality threshold for an ethically obligatory disclosure because his 25-year record of successful professional practice demonstrates that the condition has not impaired his professional qualification, and therefore the omission would not have materially affected employer hiring decisions based on professional competence
Materiality is assessed against demonstrated professional qualification; where an engineer has practiced successfully for 25 years across multiple employers, a personal neurodevelopmental condition that has not manifested as a competence deficiency is not material to professional qualification assessment
Non-disclosure is ethically permissible because the omission is non-material to professional qualification; employer curiosity or potential bias does not elevate a non-material fact to a material one
Self-Advocacy Right Invoked for Engineer A Disclosure Decision
Engineer A's consideration of whether to disclose autism diagnosis following an autism support conference presentation on self-advocacy
Prudential Disclosure as Relational Self-Protection
The Board affirmed that Engineer A has the right to advocate for himself at his sole discretion — meaning the decision to disclose his autism is a matter of personal autonomy and self-determination, not an ethical obligation imposed by the profession
Self-advocacy and disclosure of personal identity characteristics are matters of personal autonomy; the ethics code neither compels nor prohibits such disclosure — it is the engineer's sovereign choice
Self-Advocacy and Authentic Professional Identity Principle
Self-advocacy right and privacy right are presented as complementary: the engineer may choose either path (disclosure or non-disclosure) without ethical violation; the choice belongs entirely to the engineer
Ethics Code Deception Provision Scope Limitation Invoked in Present Case
Engineer A's non-disclosure of autism diagnosis to employer and clients
The Board held that the NSPE Code's 'avoidance of deception' provision cannot be read to compel Engineer A to disclose his autism diagnosis to his employer, because such a reading would give the provision an unintended and far too broad meaning — the deception prohibition targets professional misrepresentation, not the non-disclosure of personal medical conditions protected by the ADA
The deception provision's scope is bounded by the professional-conduct domain of the ethics code; personal characteristics that do not impair competence and are legally protected from employer inquiry fall outside this scope
The Board finds a clear distinction between the earlier BER cases examining the deception issue and the present case. The facts of the earlier cases indicate an effort to conceal conduct on the part of the individual or associates relating to the practice of engineering or related fields.
the facts of the present case demonstrate no effort to conceal any conduct relating to the practice of engineering or related fields. Instead, the facts relate to a personal condition with little if any apparent impact on the individual's ability to successfully practice engineering.
Honesty Non-Violation Finding For Engineer A Autism Silence
NSPE Code 'avoid deceptive acts' provision
Engineer A's silence about his autism does not violate the NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts because he has not made any affirmative misrepresentation; the 'avoid deceptive acts' standard requires more than mere non-disclosure of a personal characteristic unrelated to demonstrated professional competence
Honesty requires avoiding affirmative deception; it does not require volunteering all personal information. The relevant question is whether silence creates a false impression about professional qualification — here it does not, given 25 years of demonstrated competent practice
Personal Privacy Right Invoked By Engineer A Autism Non-Disclosure
Non-disclosure of autism to current and prior employers
Engineer A's 25-year non-disclosure of his autism diagnosis to employers does not constitute a deceptive act under the NSPE Code because autism is a personal characteristic, not a demonstrated professional qualification deficiency, and Engineer A has not affirmatively misrepresented his condition
In this context, the personal privacy right establishes that silence on a personal medical/neurodevelopmental condition is not deception when the engineer has demonstrated competent practice; the NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts does not compel disclosure of personal characteristics unrelated to professional qualification deficiency
Present Case Engineer A ADA Condition Non-Disclosure Ethics Code Deception Provision Non-Overextension
Engineer A has autism (Asperger's Syndrome), has practiced competently as a PE for 25 years, and has not disclosed his condition to employers. The question was whether non-disclosure constitutes a 'deceptive act' under the NSPE Code.
Ethics Code Deception Provision Non-Overextension Obligation
The Board was obligated to refrain from interpreting the NSPE Code's 'avoidance of deception' provision so broadly as to require Engineer A to disclose his autism diagnosis to his employer, recognizing that such an interpretation would give the Code an unintended and disproportionate reach into engineers' personal lives.
At the time of the Board's ethical review of Engineer A's non-disclosure
Present Case Engineer A Personal Condition vs Engineering Conduct Distinction
The Board compared the present case to BER 97-11 (pending ethics complaint concealment) and BER 03-6 (contractor license revocation concealment) and found a clear distinction: those cases involved engineering-related conduct concealment, while the present case involves a personal condition with no apparent impact on engineering practice.
Personal Condition Non-Concealment Distinction from Engineering Conduct Concealment Obligation
The Board was obligated to correctly distinguish Engineer A's non-disclosure of his autism — a personal condition unrelated to engineering conduct — from the concealment of engineering-practice-related conduct at issue in BER 97-11 and BER 03-6, and to apply different ethical standards accordingly.
At the time of the Board's comparative ethical analysis
Prudential Disclosure Invoked in BER 97-11 Discussion
Engineer A's decision not to proactively share background information about the pending ethics complaint with Client B
The Board noted that while Engineer A was not ethically obligated to disclose the pending complaint, Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with limited background information in a dispassionate manner — doing so would have demonstrated professional responsibility and given Client B early notice to respond to third-party questions
Even when disclosure is not ethically required, voluntary provision of limited contextual information preserves the relational trust between engineer and client and positions the engineer as transparent and professional
This action would demonstrate to Client B that Engineer A was acting in a professional and responsible manner and had nothing to hide or fear concerning the complaint.
the Board also clarified that it believed that Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned, although it was not suggesting that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against him.
Self-Advocacy And Authentic Professional Identity Invoked By Conference Speaker And Engineer A
Engineer A's deliberation about voluntary autism disclosure
Self-advocacy movement's encouragement to share personal identity in professional contexts
The self-advocacy conference and Engineer A's desire to be open about his autism represent the affirmative right — though not obligation — to voluntarily disclose personal identity characteristics as an expression of authentic professional self-presentation and self-determination, independent of any strategic relational calculus
Self-advocacy as an ethical principle affirms that voluntary disclosure of personal characteristics, including disabilities, is an expression of professional autonomy and authentic identity; it is ethically permissible and potentially valuable for inclusive professional culture, even when not required
Engineer A Retroactive Disclosure Career Jeopardy State
Activated upon Engineer A's attendance at the autism support conference and consideration of self-advocacy; ongoing deliberation
Retroactive Disclosure Career Jeopardy State
Engineer A's contemplated voluntary disclosure of autism diagnosis after 25 years of non-disclosure
Not yet terminated; Engineer A has not yet made a disclosure decision
At the least, disclosure could limit his career options if his employer and potential future employers have biases or concerns about client interactions
Attendance at autism support conference and exposure to self-advocacy speaker prompting Engineer A to consider disclosure
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Invoked in BER 75-5 Discussion
Personal misconduct by an engineer unrelated to engineering services
The Board in BER 75-5 established that personal misconduct unrelated to the practice of engineering nonetheless falls within the NSPE Code of Ethics because the code's purpose is to ensure public confidence in the integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior of professional practitioners — not merely to regulate technical engineering conduct
The ethics code's jurisdiction extends to personal conduct that undermines public confidence in the profession, even when that conduct does not directly affect engineering services — the code regulates professional character, not just professional acts
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Principle
In BER Case 75-5, the Board found that personal misconduct unrelated to the practice of engineering was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
the basic purpose of a code of ethics is to so regulate and direct the activities of professional practitioners that the public they serve may have confidence in their integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior.
Prudential Disclosure Deliberation By Engineer A
Decision whether to voluntarily disclose autism to current employer
Engineer A's deliberation about whether to voluntarily disclose his autism to his current employer — motivated by the self-advocacy conference and his own desire for openness — reflects the prudential dimension of voluntary disclosure: while not ethically required, disclosure may serve his long-term relational and professional interests by establishing a foundation of mutual knowledge and trust
The prudential disclosure principle counsels Engineer A to weigh the relational benefits of proactive disclosure against the career risks; the self-advocacy movement's encouragement to share 'who you are and what you can do' reflects this prudential value
Allegation-Adjudication Distinction Invoked in BER 97-11 Discussion
Engineer A's non-disclosure of pending ethics complaint to Client B
The Board found that Engineer A was not ethically required to disclose a pending ethics complaint filed by Client C to Client B, because the complaint was a mere allegation — not an adjudicated finding — and compelling disclosure of unproven allegations could cause unjust harm to engineers facing baseless or malicious complaints
A pending ethics complaint is a mere allegation that does not constitute a finding of fact or conclusion of law; the allegation-adjudication distinction calibrates the disclosure obligation so that only verified adverse findings trigger mandatory disclosure
BER 97-11 Engineer A Pending Complaint Non-Disclosure to Client B Ethical Permissibility
Engineer A was retained by Client B for design services and CPM scheduling while a pending ethics complaint from Client C (alleging incompetence in similar services) was active with the state board. Engineer A did not disclose the complaint to Client B.
Allegation Non-Equivalence to Adjudication Disclosure Calibration Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C constituted a mere allegation — not an adjudicated finding — and therefore was not automatically required to disclose it to Client B, while retaining discretion to weigh all factors and provide limited background information if prudent.
During the period of active service to Client B while the ethics complaint was pending
Engineer A Authentic Self-Advocacy Permission Exercise Present Case
Engineer A is considering voluntary disclosure motivated by self-advocacy principles; the Prudential Pre-Employment Disclosure framework applies by extension to the current employment context, advising that if disclosure is made, it should be strategically framed to protect the engineer's professional standing.
Prudential Pre-Employment Disclosure Relational Self-Protection Obligation
Engineer A, if he chooses to voluntarily disclose his autism to his current employer, should frame the disclosure in a manner that leverages his 25-year performance record as evidence of competence, thereby maximizing the relational self-protection benefit of the disclosure and minimizing the risk of bias-based adverse inference.
At the point of any voluntary disclosure decision, whether to current employer or future employers
After considerable thought, Engineer A considered the language in the NSPE Code of Ethics, which requires engineers to 'avoid deceptive acts.'
Non-Discrimination and Equal Dignity Invoked for Engineer A ADA Context
Engineer A's concern about potential bias from employer and clients upon disclosure of autism diagnosis
The Board cited NSPE Code Section III.1.f — requiring engineers to treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination — as the relevant provision demonstrating why Engineer A's fear of bias based on his autism is a legitimate concern that the profession must address through its anti-discrimination norm
The anti-discrimination provision of the NSPE Code creates a professional obligation for employers and clients to evaluate engineers on competence rather than disability status, and validates Engineer A's concern about bias as a legitimate professional ethics issue
Engineer A perceived the potential for bias on the part of Engineer A's employer and clients despite the fact that Engineer A's condition is clearly protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This demonstrates the relevance of the newest addition to the NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.f.
BER 03-6 Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Non-Disclosure Violation
Engineer F applied for a PE position and answered 'no' to a question about prior disciplinary action, failing to disclose that his contractor's license had been revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his license number. The engineering license itself was never revoked.
Non-Engineering Professional License Revocation Character Disclosure Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license on the engineering firm employment application, because the employer's question sought character and integrity information, and the contractor license revocation — an adjudicated finding — was material to that inquiry regardless of whether it involved the engineering license itself.
At the time of completing the employment application
Engineer F responded in the negative on the employment application. Later, the engineering firm learned that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked
BER 97-11 Engineer A Prudential Background Information Weighing
Client B later learned of the pending ethics complaint through a third party and expressed upset that Engineer A had not brought the matter to his attention. The Board noted that providing limited background information would have been the prudentially advisable course.
Pending Complaint Limited Background Information Provision Obligation
Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with limited, dispassionate background information about the pending ethics complaint so that Client B could respond to third-party inquiries and so that Engineer A could demonstrate professional transparency, even though this was not a mandatory ethical obligation.
the Board also clarified that it believed that Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial matter for the benefit of all concerned
During the period of active service to Client B, upon becoming aware of the pending complaint
Current Engineering Employer Disability Bias Non-Facilitation Present Case
Engineer A fears that voluntary disclosure of his autism could place his career in jeopardy due to employer bias or concerns about client interactions, despite his demonstrated competence.
Employer Disability Bias Non-Facilitation Obligation
Engineer A's current employer is obligated to refrain from taking adverse employment action against Engineer A based on bias or unfounded concerns about his autism if he voluntarily discloses, given his 5-year record of competent service and the ADA's protections against disability-based discrimination.
Applicable if and when Engineer A makes voluntary disclosure to his current employer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'condition': 'Personal condition protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)', 'career_status': 'Successful professional career, practicing competently'}
Engineer A is a licensed PE with a personal condition (implied neurodevelopmental disability protected under the ADA) who has practiced competently throughout their career but perceives potential employer/client bias upon disclosure. The BER found non-disclosure is not a deceptive act under the NSPE Code because the condition does not affect engineering practice.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Engineering Employer with Disability Bias Risk Present Case'}
Engineer A functioned as a professional engineer and had a successful professional career, practicing competently, as required by the NSPE Code of Ethics
Engineer A certainly has the right to advocate for himself at his sole discretion
Engineer A has a personal right to privacy and, for whatever reason, the right to not communicate aspects of his condition that do not appear to affect his ability to practice engineering
Engineer A Voluntary Autism Disclosure Prudential Weighing Present Case
Inspired by a self-advocacy conference speaker, Engineer A is considering disclosing his autism to his current employer of 5 years, but fears career jeopardy and bias-based limitations on client interactions.
Current Employment Voluntary Disability Disclosure Prudential Weighing Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to carefully and deliberately weigh the professional consequences of voluntarily disclosing his autism to his current employer — including the risk of employer bias and career limitation — against the personal benefits of authentic self-advocacy, before deciding whether to disclose, recognizing that disclosure is not ethically required but may be personally and relationally beneficial.
At the point of deliberation following the autism support conference, before any disclosure decision is made
BER 75-5 Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Application
BER 75-5 involved personal misconduct by an engineer unrelated to engineering practice. The Board held that the Code's purpose of maintaining public confidence extends its jurisdiction to such personal conduct.
Engineers and ethics review boards generally (BER 75-5 precedent)
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition Obligation
The Board in BER 75-5 established that personal misconduct unrelated to the direct practice of engineering nonetheless falls within the jurisdiction of the NSPE Code of Ethics because the Code's purpose is to ensure public confidence in the profession's integrity, honesty, and decorous behavior.
the Board found that personal misconduct unrelated to the practice of engineering was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Applicable whenever an engineer's personal conduct reflects on professional character and public trust in the profession
Engineer A ADA Non-Disclosure Non-Deception Compliance Present Case
Engineer A has practiced successfully for 25 years across multiple employers and four state licensures without disclosing his autism diagnosis. He is now questioning whether this silence violates the NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts.
ADA-Protected Condition Non-Disclosure Non-Deception Compliance Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to recognize that his 25-year non-disclosure of his autism (Asperger's Syndrome) to current and prior employers does not constitute a 'deceptive act' under NSPE Code III.2.a, provided he has made no affirmative misrepresentation about the condition, and to refrain from making any such misrepresentation if directly asked.
Throughout the 25-year period of non-disclosure and continuing into any future employment relationships