Allegation-Adjudication Distinction Invoked in Engineer F vs Engineer A Comparison
Engineer F's failure to disclose contractor license revocation on employment application
Cross-License Disciplinary History Disclosure Scope Principle
Personal Privacy Right in Professional Self-Disclosure
The Board distinguished Engineer A's case (mere allegation, no disclosure required) from Engineer F's case (actual adjudicated revocation, disclosure required), holding that the adjudicated nature of Engineer F's contractor license revocation made full disclosure a more important ethical obligation
An adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — a formal revocation — constitutes a demonstrated, verified fact that materially affects the employer's legitimate expectations and compels disclosure, unlike a mere unresolved complaint
Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer
Allegation-Adjudication Distinction in Disclosure Obligation
a major difference between BER Case 97-11 and the present case is that here, Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part. The facts do not suggest a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.
The adjudicated nature of the revocation resolved the tension in favor of mandatory disclosure, distinguishing this case from BER 97-11 where only an allegation existed
The Board believes that this is a critical issue that makes the need for full disclosure a more important consideration than the circumstances described in BER Case 97-11
The facts do not suggest a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing
a major difference between BER Case 97-11 and the present case is that here, Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part
BER 75-5 Whole-Person Integrity Standard Activation
During ethics board evaluation of Engineer F's case
BER Case 75-5 clearly indicates that the BER must look beyond just the specific practice of engineering to the whole person when addressing ethical issues relating to professional engineers
Whole-Person Integrity Standard Activation State
Application of BER Case 75-5 whole-person integrity standard to Engineer F's non-engineering contractor misconduct
Ethics board determination that whole-person standard applies and contractor misconduct is within code scope
Personal misconduct that was not related to the practice of engineering was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics
The present case involves such a situation
Engineer F's contractor license revocation for non-engineering conduct requiring determination of whether NSPE Code applies
BER 97-11 vs Present Case Allegation-Adjudication Threshold Differential
During ethics board deliberation on Engineer F's case
A major difference between BER Case 97-11 and the present case is that here, Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part
Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Differential State
Ethics board's comparative analysis distinguishing BER Case 97-11 (allegation) from Engineer F's case (adjudication)
Ethics board determination that adjudicated wrongdoing triggers mandatory disclosure unlike mere allegation
This is a critical issue that makes the need for full disclosure a more important consideration than the circumstances described in BER Case 97-11
Ethics board invocation of BER Case 97-11 as potentially applicable precedent, requiring distinction
The second case that relates to the instant case is BER Case 75-5, where the BER found that personal misconduct that was not related to the practice of engineering was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
BER Case 75-5 clearly indicates that the BER must look beyond just the specific practice of engineering to the whole person when addressing ethical issues relating to professional engineers.
Board of Ethical Review to support the conclusion that Engineer F's contractor license revocation is subject to ethical scrutiny even though it occurred outside the formal practice of engineering
Referenced as precedent establishing that personal misconduct unrelated to the direct practice of engineering may nonetheless fall within the scope of the NSPE Code of Ethics, because the purpose of a code of ethics is to maintain public confidence in the integrity and honesty of professional practitioners
The first is BER Case 97-11, where Engineer A was retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule for a manufacturing facility.
A major difference between BER Case 97-11 and the present case is that here, Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.
In finding that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C, the Board noted that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee...
Board of Ethical Review in analogical reasoning to distinguish the present case involving actual license revocation from a mere allegation
Referenced as precedent establishing that a pending ethics complaint (mere allegation) does not automatically compel disclosure to a current client, but that prudent background communication may be advisable depending on the nature and seriousness of the charges
BER Case 97-11 before current Engineer F case analysis
CausalLink_Negative Disclosure Answer on
CausalLink_Non-Disclosure to Active Clien
CausalLink_Post-Hire Non-Disclosure of Re
CausalLink_Unlicensed Individual License
{'project_type': 'Manufacturing facility', 'discovery_method': 'Third-party notification'}
Client B retained Engineer A for design services and a CPM schedule for a manufacturing facility. Client B later learned through a third party about the ethics complaint against Engineer A and expressed upset that Engineer A had not disclosed it.
{'type': 'service_recipient', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
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
Client C Former Client Now Retaining Competitor Stakeholder
{'action_taken': 'Filed ethics complaint with state board of professional engineers', 'allegation': 'Engineer A lacked competence to perform services'}
Client C had previously engaged Engineer A for similar services and filed an ethics complaint with the state board alleging Engineer A lacked competence to perform those services.
{'type': 'complainant_against', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
Former Client Now Retaining Competitor Stakeholder
an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A 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 F had an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor’s license.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer F had an ethical obligation to disclose the contractor license revocation rests not merely on the fact of revocation but on the nature of the underlying conduct: deliberately allowing an unlicensed individual unrelated to his firm to use his contractor license number. This act directly implicates the same professional integrity norms — honesty, faithful agency, and protection of the public — that govern PE licensure. Because the misconduct was not a technical or administrative lapse but an affirmative integrity violation adjudicated through a formal proceeding, the ethical obligation to disclose was heightened beyond what would apply to a purely procedural license deficiency. The safety-critical domain of fire sprinkler contracting further amplifies this materiality, since the public safety stakes of that field mirror those that animate engineering ethics codes generally. Accordingly, Engineer F's disclosure obligation was not merely triggered by the existence of a revocation but was intensified by the character of the conduct that produced it.
The Board's conclusion implicitly rejects the argument that Engineer F could ethically rely on the narrow literal wording of the employment application question — which referenced only discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering' — to justify omitting the contractor license revocation. Under the NSPE Code's prohibition on deceptive acts and its requirement that engineers avoid statements containing material omissions that create false impressions, a technically accurate answer that is crafted to exploit a question's imprecise drafting is ethically equivalent to a misrepresentation when the omitted information is material to the purpose the question was plainly designed to serve. The evident purpose of the disciplinary question was to assess the applicant's character and fitness for professional trust, not merely to audit PE license status in a narrow administrative sense. Engineer F's exploitation of the question's literal scope to conceal an adjudicated integrity violation therefore constitutes the kind of artfully misleading omission the Code prohibits, regardless of whether his PE license itself was ever disciplined. The firm's failure to draft a more comprehensive question does not transfer moral responsibility for the omission to the firm; the duty of candor rests with the applicant.
The Board's reasoning, read in light of its comparative analysis distinguishing BER Case 97-11, establishes a meaningful threshold: an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — as opposed to a pending allegation or unresolved complaint — triggers a firm disclosure obligation on a professional employment application even when the disciplinary action arose outside the PE license domain. This allegation-adjudication distinction is not merely procedural; it reflects the epistemic difference between an unproven claim and a formally determined fact about the applicant's character. Because Engineer F's contractor license revocation was a completed adjudication, he could not invoke the uncertainty or reputational-harm rationale that might counsel caution about disclosing unresolved allegations. Furthermore, the Board's reasoning implies a continuing obligation: once hired, Engineer F's duty as a faithful agent and trustee to his employer would independently require disclosure of the revocation, since concealing a material adjudicated integrity finding from an employer who would reasonably consider it relevant to the employment relationship is inconsistent with the faithful agency canon. The ethical obligation thus did not expire at the moment of hiring but persisted as a relational duty throughout the employment relationship.
The narrow wording of the employment application question does not meaningfully redistribute moral responsibility for Engineer F's omission to the hiring firm. While the engineering firm could have drafted a more comprehensive disciplinary inquiry question, the ethical obligation to disclose material integrity information flows from Engineer F's own duties under the NSPE Code — not from the precision of the questioner's drafting. An engineer who exploits an imprecisely worded question to omit an adjudicated integrity violation is not acting as a faithful agent or trustee; he is engaging in legalistic self-protection that the Code explicitly prohibits. The firm's imperfect drafting may reflect a due diligence gap on its part, but it does not constitute a moral license for Engineer F to withhold information that any reasonable employer would consider material to a hiring decision. The ethical obligation to avoid deceptive acts and technically misleading statements is self-executing — it does not depend on the sophistication of the question posed.
Engineer F's ethical obligation to disclose the contractor license revocation did not terminate upon submission of the employment application. Once hired, Engineer F entered into a fiduciary-adjacent relationship with his employer as a faithful agent and trustee under the NSPE Code. That relationship independently activates a continuing duty of candor regarding material facts bearing on his fitness and integrity. The moment Engineer F became aware that his employer was operating under a materially incomplete understanding of his professional history — an understanding Engineer F himself had created through omission — a renewed and arguably stronger disclosure obligation arose. This obligation would crystallize at the latest when the employer's reliance on the incomplete record became consequential, such as when Engineer F was assigned to projects, given supervisory authority, or held out to clients as a qualified professional. Silence in the face of a known material omission, once an employment relationship has been established, compounds rather than cures the original ethical breach.
Engineer F's disclosure obligation would be materially weaker if the contractor license revocation had arisen from a purely administrative or technical violation — such as a paperwork lapse or failure to renew on time — rather than from the integrity-implicating conduct of allowing an unlicensed individual unrelated to his firm to use his contractor license number. The ethical weight of a disclosure obligation scales with the character relevance of the underlying conduct. Administrative failures speak primarily to organizational competence; they do not necessarily implicate the honesty, trustworthiness, or professional integrity that the NSPE Code's whole-person character standard is designed to assess. By contrast, deliberately lending a license number to an unrelated unlicensed individual is an affirmative act of deception that undermines the very licensing system designed to protect the public — conduct that sits at the core of what the Code's integrity provisions address. The adjudicated nature of the revocation matters, but so does the moral character of the underlying act. A purely technical revocation might fall below the materiality threshold for mandatory disclosure on a PE employment application; the actual conduct here clearly does not.
The fact that Engineer F's misconduct — lending his contractor license number to an unrelated unlicensed individual — directly implicates the same professional integrity norms that govern PE licensure creates a heightened, not merely equivalent, disclosure obligation. Licensing systems across engineering and contracting domains share a common foundational purpose: ensuring that only qualified, accountable individuals perform work that affects public safety. When an engineer subverts that system in one licensed domain by enabling unlicensed practice, the conduct speaks directly to his fitness to be trusted with the responsibilities of PE licensure in another. The fire protection context amplifies this further: fire sprinkler systems are life-safety infrastructure, and allowing an unlicensed individual to operate under a contractor license number in that domain is not a technical irregularity but a public safety violation. The cross-domain integrity relevance and the safety-critical nature of the field together elevate the materiality of the revocation well beyond what would apply to a license revocation in an unrelated, non-safety-sensitive domain.
The tension between Employment Application Question Scope Fidelity — the notion that an engineer may answer only what is literally asked — and the prohibition on technically true but misleading statements is resolved decisively in favor of the latter under the NSPE Code. The Code does not permit an engineer to treat a questioner's imprecise drafting as a loophole through which material integrity information may be withheld. The evident purpose of the employment application's disciplinary question was to assess whether the applicant had a history of adjudicated professional misconduct bearing on his fitness for a PE role. Engineer F's answer was technically accurate in its narrowest reading but functionally deceptive in its effect: it conveyed to the hiring firm that no relevant disciplinary history existed, when in fact an adjudicated revocation for an integrity violation in a safety-critical licensed domain did exist. The Code's provisions on deceptive acts and material omissions are not satisfied by literal accuracy alone; they require that the overall impression conveyed be truthful. Engineer F's answer failed that standard.
The Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard drawn from BER Case 75-5 can be reconciled with the ordinary jurisdictional boundaries of the engineering ethics code by recognizing that the Code's reach is not defined by the domain in which conduct occurs, but by whether the conduct is relevant to the engineer's fitness to fulfill professional engineering obligations. The Code does not claim jurisdiction over every aspect of an engineer's personal life; it does claim jurisdiction over conduct that bears on honesty, integrity, and public safety — wherever that conduct occurs. Engineer F's contractor license revocation arose outside his PE role but directly implicated the same integrity norms — prohibition on enabling unlicensed practice, protection of licensing system integrity, and public safety — that the PE ethics code enforces. The cross-domain character relevance, not the domain of occurrence, is the operative jurisdictional trigger. This reading avoids both over-extension of the Code into genuinely private conduct and under-extension that would allow engineers to compartmentalize integrity violations by domain.
The Allegation-Adjudication Distinction drawn by the Board to differentiate Engineer F's case from BER Case 97-11 does not establish a binary rule that allegations never trigger disclosure while adjudications always do. Rather, it identifies adjudication as a sufficient condition for disclosure — a threshold that, once crossed, removes the prudential weighing that Engineer A in BER 97-11 was permitted to perform. Engineer A faced an unresolved allegation whose truth was contested and whose disclosure could itself cause harm; the Board recognized that a pending complaint does not carry the same evidentiary weight as a completed proceeding. Engineer F faced a formally adjudicated revocation — a finding of fact by a competent authority that the misconduct occurred. The distinction is not categorical but evidentiary: adjudication eliminates the uncertainty that justified Engineer A's more cautious approach and replaces it with a settled factual record that the engineer cannot in good faith treat as ambiguous or unresolved. Between the poles of mere allegation and formal adjudication lies a spectrum of intermediate findings — consent orders, informal settlements, deferred revocations — each of which would require its own materiality analysis.
From a deontological perspective, Engineer F did not fulfill his categorical duty of honesty by answering 'no' to the employment application's disciplinary question. Kantian ethics requires not merely that statements be literally true but that they be offered in a spirit consistent with the rational agency of the recipient — that is, that they not be designed to produce a false belief in the listener's mind. Engineer F's answer, while technically accurate as to PE license discipline, was crafted to exploit the question's narrow wording in a way that would predictably cause the hiring firm to believe no relevant disciplinary history existed. This is precisely the kind of deception by omission that deontological ethics condemns as a violation of the duty of truthfulness. The categorical imperative further condemns the underlying maxim: if all engineers were permitted to answer disciplinary questions by reference only to the narrowest possible reading of the question's literal scope, the entire institution of employment application disclosure would be rendered meaningless. Engineer F's conduct fails both the universalizability test and the duty of non-deception.
From a virtue ethics standpoint, Engineer F's deliberate reliance on the narrow wording of the employment application question to omit an adjudicated integrity violation reveals a disposition toward legalistic self-protection that is fundamentally incompatible with the whole-person integrity standard expected of licensed professional engineers. A person of genuine honesty and integrity does not scan a question for its narrowest defensible reading in order to withhold information the questioner would plainly want to know. That behavior reflects not the stable virtue of honesty but its simulacrum — a performance of technical compliance designed to achieve the benefits of candor's reputation without its substance. The virtue ethics framework asks what a person of good character would do; a person of good character in Engineer F's position would have recognized that the hiring firm's evident purpose was to assess fitness and integrity, and would have disclosed the revocation voluntarily, perhaps with context, rather than exploiting a drafting gap. Engineer F's conduct is not merely a rule violation; it is a character revelation.
From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer F's omission produced net harm across multiple dimensions. The immediate harm was informational: the hiring firm was deprived of material data needed to make an informed employment decision, potentially placing Engineer F in a role for which the firm would not have hired him had it known the full record. The downstream harm was relational: when the firm independently discovered the revocation, the trust foundation of the employment relationship was retroactively compromised — not only by the original misconduct but by the deliberate concealment, which is often more damaging to professional relationships than the underlying act. The systemic harm was institutional: if engineers are permitted to exploit narrow application wording to conceal adjudicated integrity violations, the reliability of professional employment disclosures as a screening mechanism is eroded for the entire profession. Against these harms, the benefit to Engineer F — securing a position he might not otherwise have obtained — is both self-interested and contingent on the concealment remaining undiscovered. A consequentialist calculus that accounts for discovery probability, relational harm, and systemic effects yields a clear verdict against the omission.
From a deontological perspective, the NSPE Code's duty to act as a faithful agent and trustee does impose on Engineer F an obligation to interpret the employment application's disciplinary question according to its evident purpose rather than its narrowest literal scope. The faithful agent duty is not merely a duty to avoid active deception; it is an affirmative duty to serve the principal's legitimate informational interests. A hiring firm's evident purpose in asking about disciplinary history is to assess character and fitness — not to conduct a technical exercise in license-category taxonomy. An engineer who interprets such a question by its narrowest literal scope, knowing that the interpretation will produce a materially false impression, is not acting as a faithful agent; he is acting as an adversarial party seeking to minimize disclosure. The deontological duty of fidelity requires that Engineer F ask not 'what is the minimum I must disclose under the strictest reading of this question?' but rather 'what information does my principal need to make an informed decision?' The answer to the latter question clearly includes the contractor license revocation.
Had Engineer F voluntarily disclosed the contractor license revocation on the employment application — ideally with a brief contextual explanation of the circumstances and any remedial steps taken — the engineering firm would have been materially better positioned to make an informed hiring decision, and the integrity concerns that arose upon independent discovery would have been substantially mitigated or eliminated. Proactive disclosure transforms the character signal from concealment to candor: an applicant who discloses an adverse history before being asked demonstrates the very honesty and self-awareness that a hiring firm seeks in a professional engineer. The firm might still have declined to hire Engineer F, but that outcome would reflect a legitimate exercise of informed judgment rather than a trust betrayal. More importantly, if the firm had hired Engineer F with full knowledge of the revocation, the subsequent discovery would carry no additional sting — there would be nothing to discover that was not already known. The ethical and practical case for proactive disclosure is therefore not merely deontological but prudential: it is the strategy most consistent with long-term professional integrity and relational trust.
If the employment application had been drafted more broadly — asking whether the applicant had ever had any professional or occupational license of any kind suspended, revoked, or disciplined — Engineer F would unambiguously have been compelled to disclose the contractor license revocation, and his failure to do so under such a question would have constituted an outright false statement rather than a misleading omission. The firm's failure to draft such a comprehensive question does reflect a due diligence gap, but that gap does not bear significant moral weight in distributing responsibility for the informational deficit. The ethical obligation to disclose material integrity information is not contingent on the questioner's drafting sophistication; it flows from the engineer's own affirmative duties under the Code. The firm's imprecise drafting created an opportunity for evasion that Engineer F exploited, but the exploitation itself — not the opportunity — is the ethical violation. A more comprehensive question would have eliminated the ambiguity Engineer F relied upon, but the absence of such a question did not create a moral permission to conceal.
If Engineer F's contractor license revocation had involved a domain entirely unrelated to engineering — such as a food service or real estate license — the ethical obligation to disclose on a PE employment application would be weaker, though not necessarily absent. The materiality of a non-PE license revocation to a PE employment application is a function of two variables: the character relevance of the underlying conduct and the domain relevance of the licensed activity. A food service license revocation for a health code violation speaks primarily to regulatory compliance in an unrelated field and carries limited character signal for PE fitness. A real estate license revocation for misrepresentation would carry stronger character relevance because it implicates honesty directly, even though the domain is unrelated. Engineer F's contractor license revocation in fire sprinkler contracting scores high on both variables: the underlying conduct — enabling unlicensed practice — directly implicates professional integrity norms shared across all licensed professions, and the domain — fire protection — is a safety-critical field whose public welfare stakes are directly analogous to those that PE licensure is designed to protect. The safety-critical nature of fire protection work amplifies the materiality of the revocation and supports disclosure even under a narrow reading of the application question.
If Engineer F's situation had involved only an unresolved allegation of contractor misconduct — rather than a formal adjudicated revocation — the ethical obligation to disclose on the employment application would have been materially different and would have required the kind of prudential weighing that the Board in BER Case 97-11 permitted Engineer A to perform. An unresolved allegation is, by definition, a contested claim whose truth has not been established by a competent authority; disclosing it risks conveying a false negative impression based on an accusation that may ultimately be unfounded. The allegation-versus-adjudication distinction is therefore not merely procedural but epistemically significant: adjudication produces a settled factual record that the engineer cannot in good faith treat as ambiguous, while a pending allegation remains genuinely uncertain. Engineer F's case involved a completed revocation proceeding — an authoritative determination that the misconduct occurred — which eliminates the epistemic uncertainty that justified Engineer A's more cautious approach. The disclosure threshold calibration suggested by the two cases is: pending unresolved allegations permit prudential non-disclosure; formally adjudicated findings require disclosure, particularly when the underlying conduct implicates professional integrity.
The tension between Employment Application Question Scope Fidelity — the idea that an applicant may legitimately confine answers to the literal scope of a question — and the Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition was resolved decisively in favor of the latter. The Board implicitly held that when a question's evident purpose is to assess character and fitness for professional trust, an engineer cannot exploit narrow drafting to suppress a material adjudicated integrity violation. The narrow wording of the application question ('disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked') did not exculpate Engineer F because the ethics code imposes a duty to interpret such questions according to their evident purpose rather than their most self-serving literal reading. This resolution teaches that Question Scope Fidelity is a subordinate principle: it governs genuinely ambiguous or irrelevant omissions, but it yields entirely when the omitted information is both material to the questioner's evident purpose and reflects an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing by the applicant. The principle hierarchy is therefore: Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition > Employment Application Question Scope Fidelity, whenever the gap between literal scope and evident purpose is exploited to conceal integrity-relevant conduct.
The Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard — drawn from BER Case 75-5 and applied here to Engineer F's non-engineering contractor misconduct — was reconciled with the ordinarily bounded jurisdiction of the engineering ethics code by invoking the nature of the underlying conduct rather than the domain of the license. The Board's reasoning implicitly holds that the ethics code's jurisdiction extends beyond PE practice whenever the conduct in question directly implicates the same integrity norms — honesty, non-deception, faithful agency, and protection of public safety — that the code exists to enforce. Engineer F's act of lending his contractor license number to an unlicensed individual unrelated to his firm is not merely a regulatory infraction in a separate domain; it is a paradigmatic integrity violation that mirrors the very harms the engineering ethics code guards against: misrepresentation of qualifications, facilitation of unlicensed practice, and endangerment of public safety in a safety-critical field. The Domain-Relevance Amplification principle further reinforces this synthesis: because fire sprinkler contracting is directly safety-critical, the revocation carries heightened materiality that closes any residual gap between the contractor domain and the PE ethics domain. This case therefore teaches that the Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard activates — and overrides any domain-boundedness objection — when three conditions converge: (1) the non-PE conduct reflects an adjudicated integrity violation, (2) the violation mirrors core engineering ethics norms, and (3) the domain of the violation is safety-sensitive.
The Allegation-Adjudication Distinction — used to differentiate Engineer F's case from BER Case 97-11, where Engineer A faced only a pending ethics complaint — resolves a latent tension between the Prudential Disclosure principle and the Omission Materiality principle by establishing a graduated disclosure threshold rather than a binary rule. Under BER 97-11, the Board declined to impose a categorical obligation on Engineer A to disclose a mere allegation, recognizing that unresolved complaints carry uncertain probative weight and that premature disclosure could itself be misleading or unfair. In Engineer F's case, however, the contractor license revocation is an adjudicated finding: a formal governmental determination that Engineer F committed a specific integrity violation. The synthesis of these two cases teaches that the disclosure obligation is calibrated to epistemic certainty and adjudicative finality: allegations occupy a zone of prudential weighing where disclosure may be advisable but is not categorically required, while adjudicated findings of wrongdoing — particularly those involving integrity violations in safety-sensitive domains — cross a threshold of materiality that makes non-disclosure on a professional employment application an ethics violation. The principle hierarchy is therefore: Omission Materiality (adjudicated findings) > Prudential Disclosure (allegations), with the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction serving as the operative boundary between the two regimes. This also implies that the moral responsibility for the informational gap created by the firm's narrow application drafting diminishes as the certainty and severity of the undisclosed finding increases — Engineer F cannot shift responsibility to the firm's imprecise drafting when the omitted fact is an adjudicated revocation for an integrity violation.
Professional engineering ethics review bodies
Contractor License Revocation Disclosure Standard
Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project
Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application
Engineer F when answering the employment application question; engineering firm evaluating Engineer F's fitness
Governs whether Engineer F had an ethical obligation to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license on the employment application, even though the application question was framed narrowly around engineering licensure. The revocation was material to the employer's assessment of Engineer F's character and integrity.
Contractor License Number Lending by Engineer F
Fire sprinkler contracting firm contractor license
Unlicensed individual's use of contractor license number
Licensure Integrity and Public Protection Principle
Engineer F allowed an unlicensed individual unrelated to his contracting firm to use his contractor license number on a separate project, resulting in revocation of the contractor's license — conduct that reflects on professional integrity regardless of whether it directly implicated the PE license
Allowing an unrelated, unlicensed individual to use one's contractor license number is a violation of the protective purpose of the licensing system and reflects on the engineer's professional character, even when the PE license itself is not the license at issue
Contractor License Number Lending Prohibition
Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
There is no legitimate competing principle that would justify license lending to an unrelated unlicensed individual; the revocation was an appropriate regulatory consequence of conduct that undermined public protection
Professional Norms on Disclosure of Contractor License Revocation to Employers
The fact that the request by the employer related solely to having a license suspended or being disciplined in connection with the practice of professional engineering should have been of no consequence to Engineer F.
Engineer F is assumed to have realized that the employer would have wanted to know this information before making the decision to hire Engineer F.
Board of Ethical Review in concluding that Engineer F's failure to disclose was an ethical violation
Applied as the governing standard requiring Engineer F to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license to his employer, even though the employer's question was framed narrowly around engineering licensure, because the revocation was material to the employer's assessment of Engineer F's character, integrity, and credibility
Established via present BER case analysis
Contractor License Revocation (Event 1) → Disciplinary Record Created (Event 5)
Contractor License Revocation (Event 1) → PE License Non-Suspension Outcome (Event 2)
Cross-License Disciplinary Disclosure Scope Invoked by Engineer F Application
Contractor license revocation for license lending
Engineering firm employment application disciplinary history question
Omission Materiality Threshold in Professional Disclosure
Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition
The employment application question was limited to discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering' and PE license revocation/suspension; Engineer F's contractor license revocation was technically outside this literal scope, raising the question of whether Engineer F had a disclosure obligation beyond the literal question
The scope of the question as written ('professional engineering' discipline, PE license) determines the literal disclosure obligation; the contractor license revocation falls outside this scope, but the underlying conduct — enabling unlicensed practice — may be sufficiently connected to professional character to trigger a broader honesty obligation
Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
The question's explicit limitation to PE practice and PE license actions means Engineer F's negative answer was literally within scope; however, the ethical analysis must also assess whether the overall impression was materially misleading given that the contractor license revocation arose from conduct (enabling unlicensed practice) directly relevant to professional integrity
On the engineering firm employment application, there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?'
Should Engineer F disclose the contractor license revocation on the employment application, or answer 'no' based on the question's literal limitation to PE license discipline?
Engineer F must decide how to answer the employment application's disciplinary history question, which asks about discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering,' given that his PE license was never revoked but his contractor's license was formally revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his license number on a fire protection project.
Voluntarily disclose the contractor license revocation on the application, noting the circumstances and any remedial steps taken, recognizing that the employer's evident purpose is to assess character and fitness across all professional conduct.
Answer 'no' on the grounds that the question is expressly limited to discipline in the practice of professional engineering and PE license actions, and the contractor license revocation falls outside that literal scope.
Contact the hiring firm to ask whether the disciplinary question is intended to cover non-engineering professional licenses, thereby placing the interpretive burden on the firm and ensuring the answer given reflects the firm's actual informational intent.
Should Engineer F disclose the contractor license revocation on the employment application despite the question's narrow wording referencing only PE license discipline, or rely on the literal scope of the question to justify omitting the revocation?
Engineer F's duty to disclose an adjudicated contractor license revocation on a PE employment application, where the application question was narrowly worded to reference only discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering,' and Engineer F answered 'no' while concealing a formal revocation for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number in fire sprinkler work.
Disclose the contractor license revocation on the employment application, interpreting the disciplinary question according to its evident purpose of assessing character and fitness, and provide a brief contextual explanation of the circumstances and any remedial steps taken.
Answer 'no' to the disciplinary question on the grounds that the question explicitly references only discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering,' and the contractor license revocation arose outside that domain and was not a PE license action, making the answer technically accurate as written.
Contact the hiring firm to ask whether the disciplinary question is intended to cover non-PE occupational licenses before submitting the application, thereby placing the interpretive burden on the questioner and ensuring the answer given reflects the firm's actual informational intent.
After being hired without disclosing the contractor license revocation, should Engineer F proactively disclose the revocation to his employer, or maintain silence on the grounds that the application process has concluded and no new triggering event has occurred?
Engineer F's continuing post-hire obligation to disclose the contractor license revocation to his employer once hired, given that the employment relationship activates a faithful agent and trustee duty that independently requires candor regarding material adjudicated integrity findings, and that silence in the face of a known material omission compounds rather than cures the original ethical breach.
Voluntarily disclose the contractor license revocation to the employer after being hired, recognizing that the faithful agent and trustee duty creates a continuing obligation of candor and that silence in the face of a known material omission compounds the original ethical breach.
Defer disclosure unless and until assigned to fire protection or contractor-adjacent projects where the revocation becomes directly operationally relevant, treating the post-hire obligation as triggered only by a new circumstance that makes the prior revocation material to current duties.
Treat the employment application process as the exclusive disclosure window and maintain silence post-hire, on the grounds that no new triggering event has occurred, the question was answered as posed, and the employer bears responsibility for any informational gap created by its own narrow drafting.
Should Engineer F treat the adjudicated contractor license revocation as triggering a categorical, non-waivable disclosure obligation on the employment application — foreclosing any prudential weighing — or apply the same discretionary balancing that BER 97-11 permitted Engineer A to perform regarding an unresolved allegation?
The calibration of Engineer F's disclosure obligation against the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction drawn from BER Case 97-11, which determines whether the formal adjudication of the contractor license revocation — as opposed to a mere pending allegation — creates a categorically stronger and non-waivable disclosure duty that forecloses the prudential weighing Engineer A was permitted to perform, and whether the safety-critical domain of fire sprinkler contracting and the integrity-implicating nature of the underlying conduct further heighten that obligation.
Disclose the contractor license revocation without prudential weighing, recognizing that the formal adjudication eliminates the epistemic uncertainty that justified Engineer A's more cautious approach in BER 97-11 and that the safety-critical domain amplifies materiality beyond any threshold that narrow question wording could override.
Weigh the disclosure decision prudentially — as Engineer A was permitted to do in BER 97-11 — by considering the reputational harm of disclosing a non-PE license matter, the narrow wording of the application question, and the absence of a PE license suspension, and conclude that non-disclosure is defensible given these mitigating factors.
Disclose the revocation only if the hiring firm's engineering practice directly involves fire protection or contractor-adjacent work, treating domain-relevance as a necessary condition for the disclosure obligation to activate and maintaining non-disclosure if the firm's practice is in an unrelated engineering field.
Should Engineer F proactively disclose the contractor license revocation to his employer after being hired, or treat the omission as closed once the application was submitted and the narrow question technically answered?
After Engineer F is hired and the engineering firm independently discovers the contractor license revocation, the question arises whether Engineer F bore a continuing ethical obligation to disclose the revocation proactively during the employment relationship — and whether the firm's failure to draft a broader application question bears any moral weight in distributing responsibility for the informational gap.
Voluntarily inform the employer of the contractor license revocation at or shortly after the start of employment, recognizing that the faithful agent and trustee duty requires candor about material adjudicated integrity findings regardless of what the application question literally asked.
Treat the disclosure obligation as contingent on a domain-specific trigger — disclosing the revocation only if assigned to fire protection projects where the prior contractor misconduct becomes directly operationally relevant to the employer's risk assessment.
Treat the submission of the employment application — and the technically accurate 'no' answer — as exhausting the disclosure obligation, on the grounds that the firm's narrow question defined the scope of required disclosure and no new triggering event has arisen post-hire.
Should the board treat Engineer F's adjudicated contractor license revocation as categorically requiring disclosure — distinguishing it from the mere allegation Engineer A faced in BER 97-11 — or apply the same prudential weighing standard that permitted Engineer A to exercise discretion about disclosure?
The board must determine how the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction drawn from BER Case 97-11 — where Engineer A faced only a pending ethics complaint and was not categorically required to disclose — applies to calibrate Engineer F's disclosure threshold, given that Engineer F's contractor license revocation was a formally adjudicated finding rather than an unresolved allegation.
Treat the formally adjudicated contractor license revocation as categorically requiring disclosure on the employment application, distinguishing it from BER 97-11's unresolved allegation on the grounds that adjudicative finality eliminates the epistemic uncertainty that justified Engineer A's prudential weighing.
Extend the same prudential weighing standard applied to Engineer A in BER 97-11 to Engineer F's situation, permitting Engineer F to weigh the risks and benefits of disclosing the contractor license revocation rather than imposing a categorical obligation, on the grounds that the contractor domain is sufficiently distinct from PE practice.
Adopt a graduated disclosure threshold that requires disclosure when the adjudicated finding arises in a safety-critical domain proximate to PE practice (as here, fire protection), but permits prudential weighing when the adjudicated finding arises in a domain genuinely remote from engineering obligations, thereby calibrating the obligation to both adjudicative finality and domain relevance.
Should Engineer F disclose the contractor license revocation on the employment application despite the question's narrow wording, or answer 'no' on the ground that the question literally covers only PE license discipline?
Engineer F's decision whether to disclose the revocation of his fire sprinkler contractor license on the engineering firm's employment application, given that the application question referenced only discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering' while his contractor license — revoked for lending his license number to an unlicensed individual — was a non-PE license adjudicated for an integrity violation in a safety-critical domain.
Voluntarily disclose the contractor license revocation on the employment application, interpreting the disciplinary question according to its evident purpose of assessing character and fitness, and provide a brief explanation of the circumstances and any remedial steps taken.
Answer 'no' to the disciplinary question on the ground that the question's wording expressly references only discipline in the practice of professional engineering or PE license suspension/revocation, and the contractor license is a separate, non-PE credential outside the question's literal scope.
Answer 'no' to the application question as written but commit to full disclosure if the interviewer or firm separately and explicitly asks about contractor licenses, occupational licenses in other fields, or any adjudicated disciplinary proceedings of any kind.
After being hired without disclosing the contractor license revocation, should Engineer F proactively inform his employer of the revocation, or remain silent unless the employer independently discovers it?
Engineer F's decision whether to proactively disclose the contractor license revocation to his employer after being hired, given that the omission on the employment application created a materially incomplete record and the NSPE Code's faithful agent and trustee duty imposes a continuing obligation of candor throughout the employment relationship.
Voluntarily inform the employer of the contractor license revocation after being hired, acknowledging the omission on the application and providing full context, thereby fulfilling the continuing faithful agent and trustee duty of candor before the employer discovers the information independently.
Treat the employment application as a closed transaction and remain silent about the contractor license revocation unless the employer directly asks about it, on the ground that the application question defined the scope of required disclosure and no new triggering event has arisen post-hire.
Defer disclosure until assigned to a project in the fire protection or life-safety domain, at which point the domain-relevance of the prior revocation creates an unambiguous triggering event that makes the continuing faithful agent duty concrete and disclosure clearly required.
Should the engineering firm interpret its employment application disciplinary question according to its evident purpose — capturing any adjudicated professional misconduct — or accept that its narrow literal drafting confined Engineer F's disclosure obligation to PE license matters only?
The engineering firm's decision whether to interpret its employment application disciplinary question broadly — as covering any adjudicated professional or occupational license discipline — or narrowly as written, and whether the firm's drafting choices bear moral weight in distributing responsibility for the informational gap that resulted when Engineer F answered 'no' to a question that literally referenced only PE license discipline.
Treat the disciplinary question as having been intended to capture any adjudicated professional or occupational misconduct bearing on character and fitness, and hold that Engineer F's 'no' answer was an ethically impermissible misleading omission regardless of the question's literal wording — placing full moral responsibility for the informational gap on the applicant.
Treat the question's literal wording as the operative definition of the disclosure domain, acknowledging that Engineer F's 'no' answer was technically accurate and that the firm's failure to ask about non-PE licenses distributes meaningful moral responsibility for the informational gap to the firm's own due diligence failure.
Acknowledge that the firm's narrow drafting contributed to the informational gap by creating an exploitable ambiguity, distribute partial moral responsibility to the firm's due diligence failure, and commit to revising the application to ask broadly about all professional and occupational license discipline — while still treating Engineer F's omission as an independent ethics violation.
Should Engineer F disclose the contractor license revocation on the employment application despite the question's narrow wording referencing only professional engineering license discipline, or answer 'no' based on the question's literal scope?
Engineer F: Disclosure of Contractor License Revocation on Employment Application — Literal Scope vs. Evident Purpose
Voluntarily disclose the contractor license revocation on the employment application, interpreting the disciplinary question according to its evident purpose of assessing character and fitness, and provide brief context regarding the circumstances and any remedial steps taken.
Answer 'no' to the disciplinary question on the grounds that the question's wording explicitly references only professional engineering license discipline, and the contractor license revocation falls outside that literal scope — placing responsibility on the firm to draft a more comprehensive inquiry if broader disclosure is desired.
Contact the hiring firm's human resources or legal department to ask whether the disciplinary question is intended to cover non-PE occupational licenses before submitting the application, thereby resolving the ambiguity without either withholding information or volunteering it unilaterally.
Should Engineer F proactively disclose the contractor license revocation to his employer after being hired, or maintain silence on the grounds that the employment relationship has already been established and no new triggering event has occurred?
Engineer F Post-Hire: Continuing Duty to Disclose Adjudicated Revocation to Employer as Faithful Agent and Trustee
Voluntarily inform the employer of the contractor license revocation after hire, recognizing that the faithful agent and trustee duty creates a continuing obligation of candor regarding material facts bearing on fitness and integrity, and that the employer is operating under a materially incomplete understanding created by the original omission.
Maintain silence unless and until assigned to a project in the fire sprinkler or fire protection domain, at which point disclose the revocation as a domain-relevant conflict — treating the domain-relevance amplification principle as the operative trigger for the continuing disclosure obligation rather than the employment relationship itself.
Treat the post-hire period as governed by the minimum legal standard — disclosing only if the employer directly asks about contractor license history — on the grounds that the employment application process is complete, no new triggering event has occurred, and the Code's faithful-agent duty does not affirmatively require volunteering adverse information beyond what was asked at the time of application.
Should the Engineering Firm Hiring Authority disclose Engineer F's adjudicated contractor license revocation to relevant parties — such as clients, project teams, or licensing authorities — upon discovering it, or treat the matter as an internal employment issue requiring no external disclosure?
Engineering Firm Hiring Authority: Post-Discovery Disclosure Obligation Regarding Engineer F's Adjudicated Revocation
Upon discovering the revocation, notify clients on active projects where Engineer F's role implicates fitness and integrity, and assess whether the circumstances require reporting to the state engineering licensing board or other regulatory authority, treating the public safety paramount canon as the operative obligation.
Address the discovery through internal employment action — reassignment, remediation, or termination — without external disclosure to clients or regulators, on the grounds that the revocation predates the employment relationship, no active project safety risk has been identified, and the matter is an internal personnel decision within the firm's discretion.
Conduct a structured review of all projects to which Engineer F has been assigned to determine whether the fire protection domain revocation creates a material safety or integrity risk on any active engagement, and limit external disclosure to those specific projects where the domain-relevance amplification principle applies — avoiding blanket disclosure where the revocation is not materially relevant.
Domain-Relevance Amplification Applied to Engineer F Fire Protection Contractor Revocation
Engineer F's contractor license revocation for fire protection work, in context of engineering employment application
The Board specifically noted that Engineer F's contractor license revocation arose from fire protection services — directly relevant to engineering work — which heightened the employer's interest in knowing about the revocation beyond what would apply to a revocation in an unrelated domain
The domain overlap between the prior misconduct (fire protection contracting) and the prospective engineering duties amplified the disclosure obligation beyond the baseline, because the employer's legitimate interest in assessing fitness was directly implicated
Domain-Relevance Amplification of Disclosure Obligation
the fact that Engineer F's services related to fire protection of a facility would seem to be of particular interest to the employer.
Domain relevance resolved in favor of heightened disclosure obligation; the fire protection subject matter made the revocation particularly material to the employer
Holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is the first Fundamental Canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics that all Engineers should practice at all times, whether in the practice of engineering or whatever practice they perform
the fact that Engineer F's services related to fire protection of a facility would seem to be of particular interest to the employer
Employer Hiring Due Diligence Invoked by Engineering Firm
Engineer F's contractor license revocation
Employment Application Question Scope Fidelity Obligation
Pre-Employment Qualification Disclosure Obligation
The engineering firm's employment application question was narrowly scoped to PE discipline and PE license actions, failing to ask about contractor licenses or other professional licenses; this narrow framing created an information gap that the firm's own due diligence should have addressed
The firm's failure to ask a sufficiently broad disciplinary history question — one that would have captured contractor license revocations — diminishes but does not eliminate Engineer F's independent disclosure obligation; however, the firm bears partial responsibility for the information gap created by its narrowly framed question
Employer Hiring Due Diligence Obligation
Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number on another project.
The firm's due diligence obligation and the applicant's disclosure obligation are complementary; the firm should have asked more broadly, but Engineer F's honesty obligation is not fully discharged merely because the question was narrowly framed
Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked
Employment Application Question Scope Fidelity Invoked by Hiring Firm
The engineering firm's employment application question was limited to 'professional engineering' discipline and PE license actions, which was insufficiently broad to capture Engineer F's contractor license revocation — a disciplinary action directly relevant to professional character and integrity
The firm's question scope defined the outer boundary of Engineer F's literal disclosure obligation; had the question asked about 'any professional or contractor license' discipline, Engineer F would have had a clear literal obligation to disclose the contractor license revocation
The firm bears responsibility for the incompleteness of its own inquiry; future employment applications should be drafted to capture all relevant license types, not only PE licenses
Engineer A BER 97-11 Prudential Background Information Weighing
The BER noted that while disclosure was not ethically compelled, Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with appropriate background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial manner, so that Client B could respond to third-party inquiries and see that Engineer A had nothing to hide.
Prudential Pre-Employment Disclosure Relational Risk Constraint
Although Engineer A was not compelled to disclose the pending ethics complaint, Engineer A was constrained to weigh providing Client B with limited, dispassionate background information about the pending matter — recognizing that proactive disclosure would demonstrate professional responsibility and protect the relationship from later damage when Client B learned of the complaint through third parties.
the Board 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 while the ethics complaint was pending
By doing so, 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.
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.
Engineer A Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Manufacturing facility design and CPM scheduling', 'disclosure_decision': 'Did not disclose pending ethics complaint to current client'}
Engineer A was retained by Client B for design services and a CPM schedule. During this engagement, a separate ethics complaint was filed against Engineer A by Client C alleging incompetence. Engineer A chose not to disclose the pending complaint to Client B, and the Board found this was not automatically unethical but that Engineer A should have weighed providing limited background information.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client B'}
{'type': 'complainant', 'target': 'Client C'}
Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosing Engineer
Engineer A was retained by Client B to perform design services and provide a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule
Client B learned of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A
Engineer A did not believe it was necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint
Engineer A Pending Complaint Disclosure Calibration BER 97-11
Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Discrimination Capability
Engineer A exercised the capability to recognize that a pending ethics complaint — a mere allegation — did not automatically compel disclosure to Client B, correctly calibrating the disclosure threshold for unproven allegations versus adjudicated findings.
Engineer A's decision not to report the pending ethics complaint to Client B during the rendering of services, as analyzed in BER Case 97-11
Deciding not to automatically disclose the pending ethics complaint filed by Client C to Client B, consistent with BER 97-11's finding that such disclosure was not ethically compelled
In finding that it was ethical for Engineer A not to report to Client B the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C, the Board noted that while an engineer clearly has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the benefit of a client... such obligations would not compel an engineer to automatically disclose that a complaint had been filed
a complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law
Engineer A Pending Complaint Limited Background Information Prudential Weighing BER 97-11
The Board found that while Engineer A had no mandatory obligation to disclose the pending complaint, Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and non-prejudicial manner, which would have demonstrated professional responsibility and given Client B early notice.
Pending Complaint Limited Background Information Provision Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to weigh whether to provide Client B with limited, dispassionate background information about the pending ethics complaint — even though automatic disclosure was not required — so that Client B could respond to third-party inquiries and so that Engineer A could demonstrate professional transparency.
During the period of rendering services to Client B while the ethics complaint was pending
Engineer A Pending Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosure (BER 97-11 Precedent)
During Engineer A's service to Client B while complaint from Client C was pending
Pending Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosure State
Engineer A's non-disclosure to Client B of pending ethics complaint filed by Client C (BER Case 97-11)
Client B learned of complaint through another party
A complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law
No engineer should be compelled to disclose potentially damaging allegations about his professional practice
Client C filed ethics complaint against Engineer A with state board during Engineer A's engagement with Client B
Engineer A Prudential Background Information Weighing BER 97-11
Prudential Pre-Disclosure Relational Consequence Foresight Capability
Engineer A was advised to exercise the capability to weigh the prudential benefits of providing Client B with limited background information about the pending complaint — enabling Client B to respond to third-party inquiries and demonstrating professional transparency — even though such disclosure was not ethically compelled.
BER 97-11 advisory guidance that Engineer A should have considered providing limited background information to Client B about the pending complaint
The BER's advisory that Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with some limited background information in a dispassionate and nonprejudicial manner for the benefit of all concerned
the Board 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
By doing so, 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 rendering services to Client B overlaps state board contacting Engineer A about Client C complaint
Engineer A retained by Client B before state board contacting Engineer A about Client C complaint
Engineer F Adjudicated Misconduct Disclosure Threshold Recognition
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that an adjudicated contractor's license revocation — as opposed to a mere allegation — crossed the disclosure threshold and required affirmative disclosure on the employment application
The contractor's license revocation was an adjudicated disciplinary action, not a mere pending allegation, placing it squarely within the category of misconduct requiring disclosure
Engineer F failed to disclose the adjudicated revocation of his contractor's license, treating it as though it were below the disclosure threshold when in fact an adjudicated finding of misconduct compels disclosure
Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application.
Engineer F Adjudicated Misconduct Employment Application Disclosure
The contractor's license revocation was an adjudicated outcome, not a pending allegation. Engineer F's negative answer effectively concealed this adjudicated finding from the prospective employer.
Adjudicated Professional Misconduct Employment Application Disclosure Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to disclose the adjudicated revocation of his contractor's license on the employment application, because an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — as distinct from a mere allegation — cannot be withheld on the grounds that the application question did not explicitly name contractor licenses.
At the time of completing the employment application
Engineer F Adjudicated Misconduct Employment Application Disclosure Failure
Engineer F's contractor license was revoked following an adjudicated finding that he allowed an unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number. He answered 'no' to the employment application question about disciplinary history, relying on the literal scope of the question.
Engineer F was obligated to disclose the adjudicated revocation of his contractor's license on the employment application, recognizing that an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — as distinct from a mere allegation — cannot be withheld on the basis that the question was literally limited to PE license discipline.
Clearly, a major difference between BER Case 97-11 and the present case is that here, Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part.
The Board believes that this is a critical issue that makes the need for full disclosure a more important consideration than the circumstances described in BER Case 97-11.
The facts do not suggest a mere allegation, but instead an actual adjudication of wrongdoing.
Engineer F Adjudicated Wrongdoing Contractor License Revocation Employment Application Non-Disclosure
Engineer F answered 'no' to a disciplinary history question scoped to engineering license discipline, exploiting the narrow wording to omit disclosure of his contractor's license revocation for allowing unlicensed use of his license number in fire protection services.
Adjudicated Wrongdoing Employment Application Compelled Disclosure Constraint
Engineer F was constrained to disclose the adjudicated revocation of his contractor's license on the engineering firm's employment application, because the revocation constituted an actual adjudication of wrongdoing — not a mere allegation — that reflected directly on his professional character, integrity, and fitness for engineering practice.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 03-6; BER Case 75-5
Engineer F Adjudicated Wrongdoing Disclosure Obligation
From the time of contractor license revocation through the employment application process
Adjudicated Wrongdoing Disclosure Obligation State
Engineer F's obligation to disclose the contractor license revocation as an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing
Formal revocation of contractor's license constituting an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing (facilitating unlicensed practice)
Engineer F Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Application
The ethics analysis distinguishes between Engineer A's non-compelled disclosure of a pending ethics complaint (BER 97-11) and Engineer F's compelled disclosure of an adjudicated contractor license revocation (BER 03-6).
Allegation vs. Adjudication Disclosure Distinction Constraint
Engineer F was constrained by the principle that while a mere pending allegation does not compel disclosure, an adjudicated revocation of his contractor's license — a formal finding of wrongdoing — did compel disclosure on the employment application, prohibiting him from treating the adjudicated revocation as equivalent to an unresolved complaint.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 97-11 (allegation non-compelled) vs. BER Case 03-6 (adjudication compelled)
Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked
Engineer F Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Failure
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to distinguish between a pending allegation (which does not compel disclosure) and an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing (which does), and consequently failed to recognize that his contractor's license revocation — an adjudicated finding — required disclosure on the employment application.
Engineer F answered 'no' to the disciplinary history question on the engineering firm's employment application, failing to disclose the adjudicated revocation of his contractor's license
Failure to disclose contractor license revocation on employment application, treating it as if it were a mere unproven allegation rather than an adjudicated finding of misconduct
Engineer F Artfully Misleading Employment Application Answer
Engineer F answered 'no' to the employment application question about whether he had been disciplined or had a license suspended in connection with the practice of professional engineering. This answer was literally accurate (his PE license was never revoked) but created a false impression by omitting the contractor license revocation.
Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to refrain from answering 'no' to the disciplinary history question in a manner that was technically accurate as to PE license discipline but created a false impression of an unblemished professional record by omitting the adjudicated contractor license revocation.
While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F's conduct was failing.
Engineer F BER 97-11 Allegation vs Adjudication Disclosure Threshold Distinction
The BER distinguished Engineer F's situation from BER Case 97-11 (Engineer A's pending ethics complaint) on the grounds that Engineer F's contractor license revocation was an adjudicated finding, not a mere allegation, making full disclosure compelled rather than discretionary.
Engineer F could not invoke the BER 97-11 non-compelled-disclosure precedent for pending allegations as a basis for withholding disclosure of his contractor license revocation, because that revocation constituted an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing — a categorically different disclosure trigger than a mere pending complaint.
a complaint is a mere allegation and does not amount to a finding of fact or conclusion of law.
Engineer F Contractor License Number Lending Prohibition Self-Awareness
Contractor License Number Lending Prohibition Self-Awareness Capability
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that allowing an unaffiliated unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number was a serious professional violation that would expose him to license revocation
As owner of a fire sprinkler contracting firm, Engineer F permitted an unaffiliated unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number, constituting the underlying misconduct that led to revocation
Engineer F allowed an unlicensed individual unrelated to his contracting firm to use his contractor license number on another project, resulting in revocation of his contractor's license
Engineer F Contractor License Number Lending Prohibition Violation
Engineer F, as owner of a fire sprinkler contracting firm holding a contractor's license, allowed an unrelated unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number on another project, resulting in the revocation of his contractor's license.
Contractor License Number Lending Prohibition Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to refrain from allowing an unlicensed individual unrelated to his contracting firm to use his contractor license number on a separate project, as such license-lending undermines the public protection purpose of licensure and constitutes adjudicated professional misconduct.
Previously, Engineer F was the owner of a fire sprinkler contracting firm which was required to have a contractor's license.
During the period when Engineer F owned and operated the fire sprinkler contracting firm
Engineer F Contractor License Number Lending Prohibition Violation Constraint
Engineer F's underlying misconduct — lending his contractor license number to an unrelated unlicensed individual — in the fire protection domain created both the license revocation and the subsequent disclosure obligation on the employment application.
Contractor License Number Lending Prohibition Constraint
Engineer F was constrained from allowing an unlicensed individual unrelated to his fire sprinkler contracting firm to use his contractor license number on another project, as this constituted facilitation of unlicensed contracting practice in a safety-critical domain and was the direct cause of his contractor's license revocation.
State contractor licensing statutes; NSPE Code of Ethics — non-aiding unlicensed practice provisions
Engineer F was the owner of a fire sprinkler contracting firm which was required to have a contractor's license
During the period when Engineer F operated his fire sprinkler contracting firm
Engineer F Contractor License Revocation
From the time Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked, persisting through the employment application process and beyond
Unlicensed individual who used the license number
Non-PE License Revocation for Integrity-Relevant Conduct State
Engineer F's contractor's license status
Not terminated within the case facts; persists as a matter of record
Revocation of Engineer F's contractor's license for allowing an unlicensed individual unrelated to his firm to use the contractor license number on another project
Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Non-Disclosure Employment Application
Engineer F applied for a professional engineering position and answered 'no' to a question about prior discipline or license suspension/revocation. His PE license was never revoked, but his contractor's license was revoked for allowing an unlicensed, unrelated individual to use his contractor license number on another project.
Non-Engineering License Disciplinary History Employment Disclosure Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license on the engineering firm's employment application, because the revocation resulted from an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing (license-number lending) that reflects on his professional character and fitness for engineering practice, even though the application question was facially limited to engineering license discipline.
On the engineering firm employment application, there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responds in the negative on the employment application.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'prior_role': 'Fire sprinkler contracting firm owner', 'contractor_license_status': 'Revoked', 'PE_license_status': 'Active (never suspended or revoked)'}
Engineer F, a licensed PE and former fire sprinkler contracting firm owner, applied for an engineering position and answered 'no' to the application question about disciplinary action or license suspension/revocation. His PE license was never revoked, but his contractor's license was revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual unrelated to his firm to use his contractor license number on another project. The omission of this material fact on the employment application raises obligations of truthfulness and disclosure.
{'type': 'applicant_to', 'target': 'Engineering Firm Hiring Authority'}
{'type': 'former_owner_of', 'target': 'Fire Sprinkler Contracting Firm'}
Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer
Engineer F is a professional engineer and applies for a professional engineering position with an engineering firm
Engineer F Cross-Domain License Revocation Non-Disclosure
From submission of employment application through employer's discovery of the revocation
Clients of the engineering firm who would be served by Engineer F
Cross-Domain License Revocation Non-Disclosure State
Engineer F's non-disclosure of contractor license revocation on PE employment application
Engineering firm's independent discovery of the contractor license revocation
Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended
Engineer F completing the employment application without disclosing the contractor license revocation, relying on the narrow PE-specific framing of the question
Engineer F Cross-Domain License Revocation Non-Disclosure Employment Application Constraint
Engineer F applied for a PE position and answered 'no' to a disciplinary history question, omitting the revocation of his contractor's license for allowing an unlicensed individual to use his license number on a fire sprinkler project.
Engineer F was constrained from answering 'no' to the employment application disciplinary history question without disclosing the adjudicated revocation of his contractor's license, because that revocation constituted an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing reflecting on his professional character — even though the question was narrowly worded to reference engineering license discipline.
NSPE Code of Ethics — honesty, integrity, and non-deception provisions; BER Case 03-6
On the engineering firm employment application, there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responds in the negative
At the time of completing the engineering firm employment application
Engineer F Domain-Relevance Amplified Disclosure Duty Failure
Domain-Relevance Amplified Disclosure Duty Recognition Capability
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his contractor license revocation — arising from fire protection services — was directly domain-relevant to his prospective engineering role, and that this domain-relevance amplified his disclosure obligation beyond what would apply to unrelated misconduct.
Engineer F's failure to disclose contractor license revocation despite the direct relevance of fire protection services to his engineering employment
Failure to recognize that fire protection contractor misconduct was particularly material to an engineering employer who would likely assign fire protection engineering work
Engineer F Domain-Relevance Amplified Fire Protection Disclosure Failure
Engineer F's contractor license was revoked in connection with fire protection contracting services. The engineering position he applied for was in a domain where fire protection competence and integrity were directly relevant. The Board specifically noted this domain nexus as a factor amplifying the disclosure obligation.
Domain-Relevance Amplified Adjudicated Misconduct Disclosure Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to recognize that his contractor license revocation — arising from fire protection services — was directly domain-relevant to the engineering position sought, amplifying his disclosure obligation beyond the baseline duty and making the withheld information particularly material to the employer's assessment of risk and public safety.
Moreover, while any act of the type committed by Engineer F as a contractor under the facts would be entirely unacceptable and deserving of condemnation and punishment, the fact that Engineer F's services related to fire protection of a facility would seem to be of particular interest to the employer.
Holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is the first Fundamental Canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics that all Engineers should practice at all times, whether in the practice of engineering or whatever practice they perform.
Engineer F Employer-Employee Trust Foundation Disclosure Failure
Employer-Employee Trust Foundation Proactive Disclosure Capability
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the employer-employee relationship is founded on trust and candor, and that proactive disclosure of the contractor license revocation at the outset of the employment relationship was required to maintain that foundational trust.
Engineer F's non-disclosure at the outset of the employment relationship
Failure to disclose the contractor license revocation before or at the time of hiring, resulting in undermined employer trust
Engineer F's failure to report the information at the outset of the employer-employee relationship would have the effect of undermining the level of trust that exists between the parties
in view of the importance of honesty and candor in the performance of engineering services on behalf of an employer or client
Engineer F Employer-Employee Trust Foundation Disclosure Timing Failure
Engineer F's non-disclosure of the contractor license revocation at the time of application meant that the employment relationship was established on a compromised trust foundation. The BER noted that this failure would undermine the level of trust between the parties.
Employer-Employee Trust Foundation Disclosure Timing Constraint
Engineer F was constrained to disclose the contractor license revocation at the outset of the employment relationship — before or at the time of hiring — because failure to do so at the inception of the relationship retroactively undermined the trust foundation of the employer-employee relationship, regardless of subsequent satisfactory performance.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Honesty and Integrity provisions; BER Case 03-6
Engineer F's failure to report the information at the outset of the employer-employee relationship would have the effect of undermining the level of trust that exists between the parties.
At the inception of the employment relationship (application and hiring stage)
Engineer F Employer-Employee Trust Foundation Proactive Disclosure Failure
Engineer F did not disclose the contractor license revocation when completing the employment application or at the commencement of employment. The Board found that this failure undermined the level of trust between the parties and that Engineer F was assumed to have known the employer would have wanted this information before making the hiring decision.
Employer-Employee Trust Foundation Proactive Disclosure Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to disclose the contractor license revocation at the outset of the employment relationship — before or at the time of hiring — rather than allowing the employer to potentially discover the information through third parties after employment commenced, thereby preserving the foundational trust of the employer-employee relationship.
At the outset of the employment relationship (application and hiring stages)
it would seem that Engineer F's failure to report the information at the outset of the employer-employee relationship would have the effect of undermining the level of trust that exists between the parties.
Engineer F Employer Question Evident Purpose Broad Interpretation Failure
The engineering firm's application asked about discipline 'in connection with the practice of professional engineering.' Engineer F interpreted this narrowly to exclude his contractor license revocation, when the employer's evident intent was to assess overall professional character and integrity.
Employer Question Evident Purpose Broad Interpretation Constraint
Engineer F was constrained to interpret the employment application's disciplinary history question according to the employer's evident purpose — eliciting information about character, integrity, and fitness — rather than exploiting the narrow 'engineering license' wording to omit the contractor license revocation that a reasonable employer would clearly want to know.
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 Employer Question Intent Broad Interpretation Failure
Engineer F answered 'no' to an employment application question about whether he had been disciplined or had a license suspended in connection with the practice of professional engineering, relying on the literal scope of the question to omit the revocation of his contractor's license for license-number lending.
Employer Question Intent Broad Interpretation Disclosure Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to interpret the employer's disciplinary history question according to its evident purpose — eliciting information about character, integrity, and credibility — rather than relying on the literal scope of the question (limited to PE license discipline) to justify omitting the adjudicated contractor license revocation.
While it may have appeared that the employer was seeking information related to Engineer F's practice of engineering, 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 Employer Question Intent Purposive Interpretation Failure
Employer Question Intent Purposive Interpretation Capability
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to interpret the employer's disciplinary history question according to its evident purpose — eliciting information about character, integrity, and professional fitness — rather than exploiting the narrow wording ('in connection with the practice of professional engineering') to avoid disclosing the contractor license revocation.
Engineer F's legalistic interpretation of the disciplinary history question on the employment application
Interpreting the employment application question literally and narrowly to exclude contractor license discipline, rather than reading it according to the employer's evident intent to assess overall professional fitness
While it may have appeared that the employer was seeking information related to Engineer F's practice of engineering, 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
While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question, as a matter of ethics, Engineer F's conduct was failing
Engineer F Employer Trust Undermined by Initial Non-Disclosure
From employer's discovery of the withheld information onward
Employer Trust Undermined by Initial Non-Disclosure State
Engineer F's employment relationship with employer, retroactively compromised by initial non-disclosure of contractor license revocation
Engineer F is assumed to have realized that the employer would have wanted to know this information before making the decision to hire Engineer F
Engineering ethics is not about performing the minimum amount required but, instead, ought to be about going the extra mile to exceed the employer or clients requirements
Employer discovers that Engineer F withheld material integrity information at the time of hiring
Engineer F Employment Application Contractor License Revocation Proactive Disclosure
The employment application question was narrowly worded to reference engineering license discipline, but Engineer F's contractor's license revocation for license-number lending was directly relevant to his professional integrity and fitness for an engineering position.
Employment Application Contractor License Revocation Proactive Disclosure Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to proactively disclose the revocation of his contractor's license on the employment application, recognizing that the employer's intent was to assess his full professional character and that the contractor's license revocation — resulting from adjudicated license-number lending — was material to that assessment regardless of the question's literal wording.
Engineer F Employment Application Narrow Question Omission
At the time of completing the employment application; discovered later by the engineering firm
there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?'
Narrow Application Question Exploitable Omission State
Engineer F's response to the employment application disciplinary question
the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked
Engineer F answering 'no' to the question about PE discipline/license suspension or revocation, while holding a revoked contractor's license
Engineer F Ethics-Exceeds-Minimum Employment Conduct Failure
Ethics-Exceeds-Minimum Employment Conduct Self-Regulation Capability
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that professional ethics required going beyond the minimum literal compliance with the employment application question, and to apply the 'extra mile' standard of proactive candor and transparency in his disclosure conduct.
Engineer F's legalistic minimum-compliance approach to the employment application disciplinary history question
Limiting disclosure to the literal minimum required by the narrow wording of the employment application question, rather than proactively disclosing all material disciplinary history
Engineer F Ethics Beyond Minimum Employment Disclosure Failure
Engineer F relied on a legalistic reading of the employment application question to justify non-disclosure of the contractor license revocation, satisfying the letter of the question while violating its spirit and the broader ethical standard of candor.
Ethics Beyond Minimum Employment Relationship Conduct Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to go beyond the minimum literal compliance with the employment application question and proactively disclose the contractor license revocation, recognizing that engineering ethics demands exceeding minimum requirements rather than performing only what is technically required to avoid formal sanction.
Engineering ethics is not about performing the minimum amount required but, instead, ought to be about going the extra mile to exceed the employer or clients requirements.
At the time of completing the employment application and commencing employment
Engineer F Ethics Code Supersession of Legalistic Minimum Employment Disclosure
Engineer F relied on the literal scope of the employment application question (limited to PE license discipline) to justify not disclosing the contractor license revocation. The Board held that this legalistic rationale was ethically insufficient and that the Code demands a higher standard than the minimum required by the literal question.
Ethics Code Supersession of Legal Minimum Safety Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to recognize that satisfying the literal minimum of the employment application question did not exhaust his ethical obligations under the NSPE Code, which required a higher standard of candor and disclosure than the legalistic minimum he relied upon.
Engineer F Ethics Minimum Non-Sufficiency Employment Disclosure
Engineer F relied on the narrow wording of the disciplinary history question to justify non-disclosure of his contractor license revocation, treating technical compliance as sufficient. The BER found this legalistic minimum-compliance approach ethically deficient.
Ethics Minimum Non-Sufficiency Employment Disclosure Constraint
Engineer F was constrained from treating literal minimum compliance with the employment application question as exhausting his ethical disclosure obligations — the NSPE Code requires going beyond minimum requirements to proactively disclose material information that a reasonable employer would want, even when not explicitly compelled by the narrowest reading of the question.
Engineer F Faithful Agent Duty Non-Override by Legalistic Evasion
Engineer F's reliance on the narrow wording of the disciplinary history question as a basis for non-disclosure was found to be a legalistic evasion inconsistent with the faithful agent duty of honesty and candor owed to the prospective employer.
Faithful Agent Disclosure Scope Limitation Constraint
Engineer F could not invoke a legalistic interpretation of the employment application question to override his faithful agent duty of honesty and candor toward his prospective employer — the faithful agent duty's scope limitation does not extend to permitting artful evasion of material disclosure obligations through narrow question interpretation.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Faithful Agent provisions; BER Case 03-6
Engineer F Fire Protection Domain Safety Heightened Disclosure Materiality
Engineer F's contractor work involved fire protection of a facility. The BER noted that this safety-critical domain connection made the revocation of particular interest to the employer, given that holding paramount public safety is the first Fundamental Canon of the NSPE Code.
Safety-Domain Cross-License Integrity Heightened Disclosure Constraint
Engineer F's obligation to disclose the contractor license revocation was heightened by the fact that the underlying misconduct arose in fire protection services — a safety-critical domain directly relevant to engineering practice — making the revocation especially material to a prospective engineering employer evaluating Engineer F's fitness to hold paramount public safety.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Fundamental Canon 1 (Public Safety); BER Case 03-6
Engineer F Fire Protection Safety Domain Heightened Materiality
From employment application through employment relationship
Public served by fire protection systems
The fact that Engineer F's services related to fire protection of a facility would seem to be of particular interest to the employer
Safety-Domain Integrity Violation Heightened Materiality State
Engineer F's contractor work in fire protection creating heightened materiality for disclosure of integrity violation
Not terminated — materiality persists throughout employment relationship
Holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is the first Fundamental Canon of the NSPE Code of Ethics that all Engineers should practice at all times
Engineer F's current employer engaged Engineer F for fire protection work — same safety domain as prior contractor misconduct
Engineer F Narrow Application Question Exploitable Omission
At time of employment application submission
The fact that the request by the employer related solely to having a license suspended or being disciplined in connection with the practice of professional engineering
Engineer F's exploitation of narrowly-worded PE license discipline question to omit contractor revocation
Ethics board determination that narrow reading was ethically impermissible
While Engineer F could claim a legalistic rationale for being evasive and not responding to the full implications of the question
Employer's application question scoped only to PE license discipline, not contractor license discipline
Engineer F Narrow Application Wording Non-Exculpation Constraint
Engineer F exploited the narrow wording of the disciplinary question to answer 'no,' technically accurate as to his PE license but materially misleading as to his overall disciplinary history.
Narrow Application Wording Non-Exculpation for Material Adjudicated Misconduct Constraint
Engineer F was constrained from treating the narrow wording of the employment application question — which referenced only 'engineering license' discipline — as a justification for omitting disclosure of his contractor's license revocation, because the employer's evident intent was to assess all material disciplinary history bearing on professional character.
NSPE Code of Ethics — non-deception and honesty provisions; BER Case 03-6
there is a question asking whether the engineer 'has ever been disciplined in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked?' Engineer F responds in the negative
while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked
Engineer F Non-Aiding Unlicensed Practice Constraint
The underlying misconduct that led to Engineer F's contractor license revocation — lending his license number to an unrelated unlicensed individual — is the foundational ethical violation from which all subsequent disclosure obligations flow.
Non-Aiding Unlicensed Engineering Practice Constraint
Engineer F was constrained from allowing an unlicensed individual unrelated to his firm to use his contractor license number, as this constituted aiding unlicensed contracting practice in a safety-critical domain — an absolute prohibition analogous to the non-aiding unlicensed engineering practice constraint.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.e; state contractor licensing statutes
During the period of Engineer F's fire sprinkler contracting operations
Engineer F Non-Deception Employment Application Constraint
Engineer F's 'no' answer was technically true as to his PE license but constituted a deceptive omission of his adjudicated contractor license revocation, violating the non-deception principle.
Engineer F was constrained by the fundamental non-deception principle from answering the employment application disciplinary question in a manner that was technically accurate as to his PE license but created a materially false impression about his overall disciplinary history, including the revocation of his contractor's license.
NSPE Code of Ethics — non-deception provisions; NSPE Code Section II.5 (engineers shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation of their qualifications)
Engineer F Non-Engineering License Disciplinary History Employment Disclosure Failure
Engineer F held a contractor's license in addition to his PE license. The contractor license was revoked for license-number lending. The employment application question was limited to PE license discipline, but the Board found Engineer F had an ethical obligation to disclose the contractor license revocation as well.
Engineer F was obligated to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license — a non-engineering professional license — on the employment application, because the revocation resulted from an adjudicated finding of wrongdoing and reflected on his professional character and fitness for engineering practice.
Engineer F Non-Engineering License Disclosure Scope Failure
Non-Engineering License Revocation Employment Disclosure Scope Capability
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the scope of required disclosure on the employment application extended beyond engineering licensure actions to include the revocation of his contractor's license — a non-engineering professional license — because that revocation reflected adjudicated professional misconduct relevant to his fitness for professional employment.
Engineer F's failure to disclose contractor license revocation on the employment application, treating the question as limited to engineering license discipline
Interpreting the employment application disciplinary history question narrowly as applying only to engineering license discipline, thereby omitting the contractor license revocation
The fact that the request by the employer related solely to having a license suspended or being disciplined in connection with the practice of professional engineering should have been of no consequence to Engineer F
Engineer F Non-Engineering License Disclosure Scope Recognition
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the employment application's disciplinary history question extended to his contractor's license revocation, not merely to his PE license
Engineer F applied for a professional engineering position and answered the disciplinary history question narrowly, treating it as limited to his PE license only
Engineer F answered 'no' to the disciplinary history question despite having had his contractor's license revoked, failing to recognize that the question's spirit encompassed non-engineering professional license discipline
Engineer F Non-Engineering Professional License Revocation Character Disclosure
The employment application question asked about discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering' and license suspension or revocation. Engineer F construed this narrowly to exclude his contractor's license revocation, but the employer's underlying intent was to elicit character-relevant professional history.
Non-Engineering Professional License Revocation Character Disclosure Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to interpret the employment application's disciplinary history question broadly — consistent with the employer's evident intent to assess professional character — and to disclose the revocation of his contractor's license as a credential whose revocation reflects on his integrity and fitness for professional engineering practice.
Engineer F Non-PE License Revocation Integrity Relevance
From revocation of contractor license through employment application and employment relationship
Engineer F had his contractor's license revoked because of actual demonstrated violation on Engineer F's part
Engineer F's contractor license revocation for allowing unlicensed use of license number
Not terminated — integrity-relevant fact persists
BER Case 75-5 clearly indicates that the BER must look beyond just the specific practice of engineering to the whole person
Contractor license revoked for allowing unlicensed individual to use Engineer F's license number
Engineer F Personal Condition vs Professional Conduct Distinction
Personal Condition vs Engineering Conduct Concealment Distinction Capability
Engineer F needed the capability to correctly classify the contractor's license revocation as professional conduct concealment — not merely a personal condition — recognizing that the revocation arose from conduct in a professional capacity and therefore fell within the scope of ethics code deception provisions
Engineer F's contractor's license revocation was not a personal medical or private matter but an adjudicated consequence of professional misconduct, making it subject to disclosure obligations under professional ethics codes
The contractor's license revocation stemmed from Engineer F's professional conduct (lending a license number), placing it within the domain of professional conduct disclosure rather than personal condition non-disclosure
Engineer F Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction BER 75-5
Engineer F's contractor license was revoked for allowing an unlicensed individual unrelated to his firm to use his contractor license number on fire protection projects. The BER applied BER Case 75-5 to establish that this personal misconduct fell within the scope of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Constraint
Engineer F was constrained by the NSPE Code of Ethics with respect to his contractor misconduct — allowing unlicensed use of his license number — even though that conduct occurred outside the formal practice of engineering, because the Code's jurisdiction extends to personal misconduct that reflects on the engineer's integrity, honesty, and fitness for professional practice.
BER Case 75-5; NSPE Code of Ethics — Deceptive Acts provision; BER Case 03-6
At the time of the contractor misconduct and continuing through the employment application
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.
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.
Engineer F Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Failure
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdictional Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics extends its jurisdiction to personal misconduct — including contractor license revocation — that undermines public confidence in professional integrity, and consequently failed to understand that his contractor license revocation was subject to ethical scrutiny under the Code.
Engineer F's failure to disclose contractor license revocation, apparently reasoning that the ethics code only applied to engineering license discipline
Treating the contractor license revocation as outside the scope of engineering ethics obligations, implicitly reasoning that only engineering license discipline was ethically relevant
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
Engineer F Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition Failure
Engineer F's contractor license revocation arose from non-engineering contracting activity (license-number lending). The Board applied BER Case 75-5 to hold that the Code of Ethics reaches beyond the specific practice of engineering to the whole person, making Engineer F's contractor misconduct subject to ethical scrutiny.
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Recognition Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to recognize that the NSPE Code of Ethics extends its jurisdiction to personal misconduct — including contractor license revocation — that reflects on his integrity and fitness for professional practice, and could not treat the Code as limited to purely technical engineering conduct.
At the time of the contractor license revocation and subsequently at the time of employment application
Engineer F Precedent Triangulation Disclosure Calibration Failure
Precedent Triangulation for Personal Disclosure Obligation Calibration Capability
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to synthesize BER precedents — particularly BER 97-11 (pending complaint, no compelled disclosure) and BER 75-5 (personal misconduct subject to Code) — to correctly calibrate his disclosure obligations, failing to recognize that his situation (adjudicated revocation, domain-relevant misconduct) fell squarely within the disclosure-required category.
Engineer F's failure to disclose, which the BER analyzed by distinguishing BER 97-11 and applying BER 75-5
Failure to recognize that his adjudicated contractor license revocation was categorically different from the pending allegation in BER 97-11 and that BER 75-5 extended Code jurisdiction to his non-engineering misconduct
Two previous Board of Ethical Review cases provide some background for considering this case
Engineer F Privacy Right Material Omission Boundary Application
Engineer F's tension between relying on narrow question wording and disclosing material conduct history is resolved against the privacy interest because the revocation is adjudicated and material.
Privacy Right Material Omission Boundary Constraint
Engineer F was constrained from invoking a privacy interest in his contractor license revocation to justify omitting it from the employment application, because the revocation crossed the threshold from legitimately private information to materially outcome-determinative information that a reasonable employer would consider essential to the hiring decision.
NSPE Code of Ethics — honesty and non-deception provisions; BER Cases 19-1, 97-11, 03-6
Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked because he allowed an unlicensed individual who was unrelated to his contracting firm to use the contractor license number
Engineer F Privacy vs. Material Omission Tension
At time of employment application and throughout employment relationship
Privacy Right vs. Material Omission Tension State
Engineer F's tension between privacy interest in non-disclosure of contractor revocation and ethical duty to disclose material integrity information
Ethics board determination that material omission obligation overrides privacy interest given adjudicated nature of wrongdoing
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's decision to answer narrowly and not volunteer contractor license revocation information
Engineer F Privacy vs Material Omission Tension
Engineer F's tension between relying on narrow question wording and disclosing material conduct history
Engineer F's decision to answer negatively (resolving the tension in favor of non-disclosure)
Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked
Engineer F's decision about how to respond to the narrowly worded disciplinary question given the contractor license revocation
Engineer F Prudential Pre-Disclosure Foresight Failure
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to foresee that proactively disclosing the contractor license revocation at the outset of the employment relationship — even if not strictly compelled — would have placed him in a stronger professional and relational position, and that failure to disclose would undermine the foundational trust of the employer-employee relationship when the information eventually came to light.
Engineer F's non-disclosure at the outset of the employment relationship and the resulting trust damage
Failure to proactively disclose the contractor license revocation, resulting in undermined employer trust when the information was discovered
Engineer F Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Employment Application
By answering 'no' to the disciplinary history question without disclosing the contractor's license revocation, Engineer F effectively misrepresented the completeness and accuracy of his professional record to the prospective employer.
Qualifications Non-Falsification and Non-Misrepresentation Obligation
Engineer F was obligated to refrain from misrepresenting his professional qualifications and disciplinary history on the employment application, including by omitting the contractor's license revocation in a manner that created a false impression of an unblemished professional record.
Later, the engineering firm learns that while Engineer F's engineering license was never revoked or suspended, Engineer F's contractor's license was revoked.
Engineer F Safety Domain Cross-License Heightened Disclosure Constraint
Engineer F's fire sprinkler contracting background and the safety-critical nature of fire protection systems heightens the materiality of his contractor license revocation for disclosure purposes.
Engineer F was subject to a heightened disclosure obligation because his contractor license revocation arose from misconduct in the fire protection domain — a safety-critical field — making the revocation especially material to a prospective engineering employer who might assign him to fire protection, life safety, or related engineering work.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Fundamental Canon 1 (public safety paramount); honesty and non-deception provisions
Engineer F was the owner of a fire sprinkler contracting firm
Engineer F Technically True Misleading Answer Employment Application
Engineer F's negative answer was literally true with respect to his PE license, but it obscured the adjudicated revocation of his contractor's license — a material fact that the prospective employer would reasonably want to know when assessing his professional character.
Engineer F was obligated to refrain from answering 'no' to the disciplinary history question in a manner that was technically accurate as to his PE license but created the false impression of an entirely unblemished professional record, omitting the material fact of his contractor's license revocation.
Engineer F Technically True Misleading Answer Failure
Technically True Misleading Statement Recognition and Avoidance Capability
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that answering 'no' to the disciplinary history question — while technically accurate as to his PE license — was materially misleading because it omitted the adjudicated revocation of his contractor's license, creating a false impression of a clean disciplinary record.
Engineer F's 'no' answer to the disciplinary history question on the employment application, exploiting the narrow wording to avoid disclosing the contractor license revocation
Answering 'no' to the employment application disciplinary history question in a manner that was technically accurate as to PE licensure but misleading as to overall professional disciplinary history
Engineer F Technically True Misleading Employment Application Answer
Engineer F lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his 'no' answer — technically accurate as to his PE license — was materially misleading because it omitted the contractor's license revocation and created a false impression of an unblemished disciplinary record
The employment application asked about discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked' — Engineer F exploited the ambiguity to answer negatively while concealing a material disciplinary fact
Engineer F answered 'no' to the disciplinary history question in a manner that was literally true regarding his PE license but created a false impression by omitting the contractor's license revocation
Engineer F owning fire sprinkler contracting firm before Engineer F applying for professional engineering position
Engineer F submitting employment application with negative answer before engineering firm discovering contractor's license revocation
Engineer F's Employer Engineering Firm Hiring Authority
{'inquiry_scope': 'Asked about PE license suspension or discipline', 'interest': 'Fire protection facility services', 'information_sought': 'Character, integrity, and credibility of Engineer F'}
Engineer F's employer asked Engineer F specifically about whether Engineer F had a license suspended or been disciplined in connection with the practice of professional engineering. The employer's question, while narrowly worded, sought to elicit information about Engineer F's character, integrity, and credibility as a professional engineer.
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Engineer F'}
the request by the employer related solely to having a license suspended or being disciplined in connection with the practice of professional engineering
{'entity_type': 'Engineering firm', 'action': 'Reviewed employment application; discovered undisclosed contractor license revocation'}
The engineering firm that posted a professional engineering position, administered an employment application containing a question about prior disciplinary actions or license revocations, and later discovered that Engineer F's contractor's license had been revoked — a fact not disclosed on the application.
{'type': 'prospective_employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer F Contractor License Revocation Omitting Engineer'}
applies for a professional engineering position with an engineering firm
Engineering Firm Hiring Authority Broad Disciplinary Inquiry Due Diligence
The engineering firm's application question was limited to discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering' and PE license actions, which failed to elicit information about Engineer F's contractor's license revocation — a material fact about his professional character.
Hiring Firm Broad-Scope Disciplinary Inquiry Due Diligence Obligation
The engineering firm was obligated to draft its employment application disciplinary history question with sufficient breadth to capture all professional license actions — including contractor licenses — relevant to assessing a candidate's professional character, rather than limiting the inquiry to engineering license discipline alone.
At the time of designing and administering the employment application
Engineering Firm Hiring Authority Disciplinary Inquiry Scope Drafting
Employment Application Disciplinary Inquiry Scope Drafting Capability
The engineering firm's hiring authority needed the capability to draft a disciplinary history question broad enough to capture non-engineering professional license revocations, rather than limiting the question to 'the practice of professional engineering'
The engineering firm administered an employment application with a disciplinary history question that was insufficiently broad to capture all relevant professional license discipline, enabling Engineer F's non-disclosure
The firm's application question was narrowly worded to ask only about discipline 'in the practice of professional engineering or had his license suspended or revoked,' creating a gap that Engineer F exploited to omit his contractor's license revocation
Engineering Firm Hiring Authority Employment Application Scope Drafting
The engineering firm's hiring authority possessed — but may not have fully exercised — the capability to draft employment application disciplinary history questions with sufficient breadth to capture all professional license discipline, including non-engineering licenses, recognizing that the narrowly worded question limited to 'engineering license' discipline created a disclosure gap that Engineer F exploited.
The engineering firm's employment application disciplinary history question that Engineer F answered 'no' to, despite his contractor license revocation
Drafting an employment application question limited to discipline 'in connection with the practice of professional engineering,' which was narrow enough to allow Engineer F to answer 'no' without disclosing the contractor license revocation
Engineer F's employer asked Engineer F specifically about whether Engineer F had a license suspended or been disciplined in connection with the practice of professional engineering
Engineering Firm Hiring Authority Licensure Due Diligence
Licensure Condition Hiring Due Diligence Capability
The engineering firm needed the capability to conduct reasonable pre-hire due diligence that would surface disciplinary history across all professional licenses held by the candidate, not merely the PE license
The engineering firm posted a professional engineering position and administered an employment application, but its due diligence process did not surface Engineer F's contractor's license revocation prior to hire
The firm failed to discover Engineer F's contractor's license revocation through its hiring process, suggesting insufficient due diligence scope in its candidate vetting procedures
Engineering Firm Hiring Broad Disciplinary Inquiry Drafting Constraint
The engineering firm's narrowly worded question — referencing only 'engineering license' discipline — created an exploitable gap that allowed Engineer F to answer 'no' without disclosing his contractor license revocation.
Hiring Firm Broad Disciplinary Inquiry Drafting Constraint
The engineering firm was constrained to draft its employment application disciplinary history question with sufficient breadth to capture all professional and occupational license discipline — not merely engineering license discipline — so as to elicit complete and material information about candidates' professional character and fitness.
NSPE Code of Ethics — due diligence and public safety obligations; best practices in professional hiring
At the time of drafting and administering the employment application
Ethics Code Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Applied to Engineer F Employment Disclosure
Engineer F's answer to employment application disciplinary question
The Board held that Engineer F's legalistic rationale for not disclosing the contractor license revocation — relying on the literal scope of the question — was ethically insufficient, because engineering ethics requires going beyond the minimum legally defensible answer to the full disclosure that the employer would reasonably expect
A technically defensible literal answer that creates a materially misleading impression fails the ethical standard even if it satisfies the minimum legal requirement
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
Ethics code standard prevails over legalistic minimum compliance; Engineer F's conduct was ethically failing even if technically defensible
Professional Norms on Disclosure of Pending Ethics Complaints to Clients
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 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.
Board of Ethical Review to distinguish the present case (actual adjudicated revocation) from the mere-allegation scenario in BER Case 97-11
Applied as the governing standard for evaluating whether a pending ethics complaint must be disclosed to a current client or employer, with the conclusion that a mere allegation does not compel automatic disclosure but prudent communication may be advisable
Honesty in Professional Representations Invoked by Engineer F Employment Application
Engineer F's negative answer on the employment application, while literally accurate as to PE license discipline, raises the question of whether it constituted an honest and accurate representation of his professional disciplinary history in the broader sense required by professional honesty obligations
Professional honesty in employment representations requires not only literal accuracy but also that the overall picture presented to the employer is not materially incomplete or misleading; the contractor license revocation for enabling unlicensed practice is a fact that bears directly on professional character
The honesty obligation supports disclosure of the contractor license revocation as a matter of professional character, even if the question's literal scope did not require it
Licensure Integrity Implicated by Engineer F License Lending
Contractor license number lending to unlicensed individual
Fire sprinkler contracting firm operations
Engineer F's act of allowing an unrelated unlicensed individual to use his contractor license number on another project directly undermined the protective purpose of the contractor licensing system, which — like PE licensure — exists to ensure that only qualified, accountable individuals perform regulated work
The contractor licensing system, like the PE licensing system, serves the public interest by ensuring accountability; license lending destroys that accountability and is a violation of the integrity principle underlying all professional licensing
No legitimate competing principle justifies license lending; the revocation was an appropriate consequence and the underlying conduct reflects on professional integrity across all license types held by Engineer F
Misrepresentation in Business Dealings Standard
Engineer F in completing the employment application; ethics reviewers evaluating Engineer F's conduct
Governs whether Engineer F's technically accurate but potentially misleading negative response to the employment application question constitutes a prohibited misrepresentation in a business context, given that the contractor license revocation was material to the employer's evaluation of his professional character.
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer F in completing employment application; engineering firm in evaluating Engineer F's conduct
Primary normative authority governing Engineer F's obligation to provide truthful and complete disclosures on an employment application, including the duty not to deceive or mislead a prospective employer through technically accurate but materially incomplete answers
NSPE Code of Ethics - Deceptive Acts Provision
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. Thus, it is that the NSPE Code embraces language similar to that found in the codes of other professions to the effect (that Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts).
Board of Ethical Review in reasoning that Engineer F's evasive non-disclosure constituted a deceptive act violating the Code
Cited in BER Case 75-5 and the present discussion as the basis for the obligation that engineers shall avoid deceptive acts, extending to personal conduct beyond formal engineering practice
NSPE Code of Ethics - Fundamental Canon 1 (Public Safety, Health, and Welfare)
Board of Ethical Review to underscore the heightened ethical significance of Engineer F's contractor license revocation in the context of fire protection services
Cited as the first Fundamental Canon requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public in all professional activities, including non-engineering practice such as contractor work involving fire protection
Negative Disclosure Answer on Application
Negative Disclosure Answer on Application (Action 2) → Engineer F Hired By Firm (Event 4)
Non-Disclosure to Active Client (BER 97-11 Precedent)
Non-Disclosure to Active Client (BER 97-11 Precedent) (Action 4) → Disciplinary Record Created (Event 5) [as analogical precedent reinforcing Engineer F's disclosure obligations]
Omission Materiality of Contractor License Revocation by Engineer F
Engineer F did not volunteer the contractor license revocation because the application question did not literally require it; the ethical question is whether this omission was material — i.e., whether the contractor license revocation was information the engineering firm would have considered material to its hiring decision
The contractor license revocation — arising from allowing an unlicensed individual to use the license number — is likely material to a reasonable engineering firm's hiring decision because it reflects on the candidate's professional integrity and judgment, even though it did not involve the PE license directly
The materiality of the omission supports a finding that Engineer F had an obligation to volunteer the contractor license revocation even though the question did not literally require it, because the information would have affected the firm's hiring decision
Ethics reviewers evaluating whether Engineer F's contractor-related misconduct falls within the scope of professional engineering ethics
Governs whether Engineer F's conduct — allowing an unlicensed individual unrelated to his firm to use his contractor license number — constitutes misconduct that, while not directly in the practice of professional engineering, nonetheless implicates professional ethics obligations because it reflects on his integrity, honesty, and fitness as a professional.
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Applied to Engineer F Contractor Revocation
Engineer F's contractor license revocation for license lending
The Board applied BER Case 75-5 to hold that Engineer F's contractor license revocation — though not arising from the practice of professional engineering — was nonetheless subject to the NSPE Code of Ethics because the code's purpose is to ensure public confidence in professional integrity, which requires looking at the whole person
The ethics code's jurisdiction extends to conduct outside the technical practice of engineering when that conduct undermines public confidence in the engineer's integrity and character
Personal Misconduct Ethics Code Jurisdiction Principle
The whole-person character standard overrides the narrow technical scope of the employment question, requiring disclosure of the contractor license revocation
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
Professional Norms on Personal Misconduct and the Scope of Engineering Ethics Codes
BER Case 75-5, where the BER found that personal misconduct that was not related to the practice of engineering was a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
Board of Ethical Review to justify applying the NSPE Code to Engineer F's conduct as a contractor
Applied to establish that Engineer F's contractor license revocation—though occurring outside formal engineering practice—falls within the scope of the NSPE Code of Ethics because the Code governs the whole person, not merely technical engineering activities
Post-Hire Non-Disclosure of Revocation (Action 3) → Firm Discovers Revocation (Event 3)
Prudential Disclosure Applied to Engineer A Client B Background Information Recommendation
Engineer A's relationship with Client B during pending ethics complaint
Even though the Board found Engineer A had no ethical obligation to disclose the pending complaint to Client B, the Board recommended that Engineer A should have weighed providing Client B with limited background information in a dispassionate manner, to demonstrate professional responsibility and give Client B early notice to respond to third-party inquiries
Voluntary proactive disclosure of adverse professional information — even when not required — preserves relational trust and demonstrates professional responsibility, placing the engineer in a stronger position if the matter later becomes known
Prudential Disclosure as Relational Self-Protection
Prudential disclosure recommended as best practice even where mandatory disclosure was not required
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
Prudential Disclosure Relational Self-Protection Applied to Engineer F Employer Relationship
Engineer F's employment relationship with Engineering Firm Hiring Authority
The Board noted that Engineer F's failure to disclose the contractor license revocation at the outset of the employment relationship had the effect of undermining the level of trust between the parties, illustrating that voluntary proactive disclosure would have preserved the relational trust that non-disclosure ultimately destroyed
Even setting aside mandatory disclosure obligations, the prudential interest in maintaining employer trust counseled disclosure; non-disclosure created a relational vulnerability that materialized when the omission was discovered
Prudential self-interest aligned with ethical obligation; both counseled disclosure
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked as Cross-Domain Character Standard for Engineer F
Engineer F's fire protection contracting activities and employment disclosure obligation
The Board invoked the first Fundamental Canon — holding paramount public safety, health, and welfare — as a cross-domain character obligation that applies to engineers in all their professional activities, including contractor work, not only in the formal practice of engineering, thereby grounding the disclosure obligation in the paramount public welfare principle
Public welfare paramount is not confined to engineering practice but extends to all professional activities of an engineer, making conduct that endangers public safety (such as license lending in fire protection) ethically culpable regardless of the professional domain in which it occurs
Public welfare paramount overrides the narrow technical scope of the PE license discipline question, requiring broader character-based disclosure
Engineer F in completing the employment application
Governs Engineer F's obligation to honestly and accurately represent his professional background, disciplinary history, and fitness when seeking a professional engineering position, prohibiting omissions or technically accurate statements that create a false impression of his qualifications and character.
Did Engineer F have an ethical obligation to report on the employment application the revocation of his contractor’s license?
Does the ethical obligation to disclose the contractor license revocation change depending on whether the employment application question was drafted narrowly by the hiring firm, and does the firm's imprecise drafting bear any moral weight in distributing responsibility for the omission?
Beyond the initial employment application, did Engineer F acquire a continuing or renewed ethical obligation to disclose the contractor license revocation to his employer once he was hired, and if so, at what point does that obligation arise?
Would Engineer F's ethical disclosure obligation differ if the contractor license revocation had been for a purely administrative or technical violation unrelated to integrity — such as a paperwork lapse — rather than for allowing an unlicensed individual to misuse his license number?
Does the fact that Engineer F's misconduct — lending his contractor license number to an unrelated unlicensed individual — directly implicates the same professional integrity norms that govern PE licensure create a heightened disclosure obligation compared to a contractor license revocation arising from entirely unrelated conduct?
Does the principle that engineers are entitled to rely on the literal scope of a question asked of them — Employment Application Question Scope Fidelity — conflict with the principle that technically true but misleading answers are ethically prohibited, and how should an engineer resolve that tension when the question's wording is narrower than its evident purpose?
How should the Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard — which extends ethical scrutiny to non-engineering conduct — be reconciled with the principle that the ethics code's jurisdiction is ordinarily bounded by professional engineering practice, given that Engineer F's contractor license revocation arose outside his PE role?
Does the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction — which the Board used to differentiate Engineer F's case from BER 97-11 — conflict with the Prudential Disclosure principle applied to Engineer A, and does that conflict suggest that adjudicated findings always trigger disclosure while mere allegations never do, or is there a more nuanced threshold?
Does the Domain-Relevance Amplification principle — which heightens disclosure obligations when the prior misconduct occurred in a safety-sensitive field like fire protection — conflict with the Omission Materiality principle's domain-neutral standard, and should disclosure obligations be calibrated to the safety stakes of the prior domain or applied uniformly regardless of subject matter?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer F fulfill his categorical duty of honesty by answering 'no' to the employment application's disciplinary question, given that the question's literal wording referenced only professional engineering license discipline while his contractor's license had been formally revoked for a clear integrity violation?
From a virtue ethics standpoint, does Engineer F's deliberate reliance on the narrow wording of the employment application question to omit a material adjudicated integrity violation reflect the character of a professional who embodies honesty and integrity as stable virtues, or does it reveal a disposition toward legalistic self-protection incompatible with the whole-person integrity standard expected of licensed engineers?
From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer F's omission of the contractor license revocation on his employment application produce net harm by depriving the hiring firm of material information needed to assess his trustworthiness, and does the downstream erosion of employer-employee trust once the revocation was discovered outweigh any benefit Engineer F gained by securing the position through a technically accurate but misleading answer?
From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Code's duty to act as a faithful agent and trustee impose on Engineer F an obligation to interpret the employment application's disciplinary question according to its evident purpose—assessing character and fitness—rather than its narrowest literal scope, such that omitting an adjudicated non-PE license revocation constitutes a breach of duty regardless of the question's precise wording?
If Engineer F had voluntarily disclosed the contractor license revocation on the employment application before being hired, would the engineering firm have been ethically and practically better positioned to make an informed hiring decision, and would proactive disclosure have mitigated or eliminated the integrity concerns that arose when the firm independently discovered the omission?
If the employment application had been drafted more broadly—asking whether the applicant had ever had any professional or occupational license suspended, revoked, or disciplined in any field—would Engineer F have been compelled to disclose the contractor license revocation, and does the firm's failure to draft such a comprehensive question share any moral responsibility for the informational gap that resulted?
If Engineer F's contractor license revocation had involved a domain entirely unrelated to engineering—such as a food service or real estate license—rather than fire sprinkler contracting, which directly implicates public safety and fire protection, would the ethical obligation to disclose on a professional engineering employment application be weaker, and does the safety-critical nature of fire protection work amplify the materiality of the revocation to the point where disclosure would be required even under a narrow reading of the application question?
If Engineer F's situation had involved only an unresolved allegation of contractor misconduct—rather than a formal adjudicated revocation—would the ethical obligation to disclose on the employment application have been different, and how does the allegation-versus-adjudication distinction drawn in BER Case 97-11 apply to calibrate the disclosure threshold between Engineer A's pending complaint and Engineer F's completed revocation proceeding?
Technically True But Misleading Answer by Engineer F
Engineer F answered 'no' to a question about PE discipline/license revocation, which was literally accurate (the PE license was never revoked), but the answer concealed a contractor license revocation for conduct reflecting on professional character — potentially creating a false overall impression of a clean disciplinary record
The prohibition on technically true but misleading statements requires assessment of whether the overall impression conveyed by Engineer F's 'no' answer was materially false, even if literally accurate within the narrow scope of the question as asked
The resolution depends on whether the question's explicit limitation to 'professional engineering' discipline and PE license actions means Engineer F's negative answer was within scope and not misleading, or whether the contractor license revocation was sufficiently connected to professional character to make the negative answer misleading in overall impression
Technically True But Misleading Statement Prohibition Applied to Engineer F Employment Application
Engineer F's answer to employment application disciplinary history question
Engineer F's negative answer to the disciplinary question was technically defensible on a literal reading (the question asked about PE license discipline, not contractor license discipline) but created a materially false impression that Engineer F had no relevant disciplinary history, violating the prohibition on technically-true-but-misleading statements
Exploiting the narrow literal scope of a question to avoid disclosing material adverse information constitutes the same ethical violation as an outright falsehood when the overall impression conveyed is false
The ethical standard of non-deception overrides the literal scope of the question; the engineer must ensure the overall impression conveyed is accurate
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
Ethics reviewers assessing the nature and severity of Engineer F's underlying misconduct
Provides background context for the underlying misconduct that led to Engineer F's contractor license revocation — specifically, Engineer F facilitated an unlicensed individual's use of a contractor license number, which is directly related to the professional norms prohibiting facilitation of unlicensed practice.
Unlicensed Individual License Sharing (Action 1) → Contractor License Revocation (Event 1)
Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard Applied to Engineer F Employment Application
Engineer F's interpretation and response to employment application disciplinary history question
The Board held that Engineer F should have interpreted the employer's disciplinary question as an inquiry into character, integrity, and credibility — not merely a technical question about PE license discipline — and should have disclosed the contractor license revocation as material character information regardless of the question's literal scope
Engineers must read employer inquiries about disciplinary history as character assessments and respond to their evident purpose, not merely their literal wording
Whole-Person Character Integrity Standard in Engineering Employment
while it may have appeared that the employer was seeking information related to Engineer F's practice of engineering, 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.
The character-inquiry interpretation obligation overrides the literal question scope; Engineer F's legalistic parsing was ethically insufficient
while it may have appeared that the employer was seeking information related to Engineer F's practice of engineering, 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
contractor's license revocation before Engineer F applying for professional engineering position
contractor's license revocation before engineering firm discovering the revocation
employment application submission before hiring decision
hiring of Engineer F before engineering firm discovering contractor's license revocation
state board contacting Engineer A before Client B learning of the ethics complaint
unlicensed individual using contractor license number on another project before contractor's license revocation