ProEthica Case 82 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.296221
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

BER Case 61-10
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.98
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 61-10: Engineer Assigned to Design of Lower-Quality Commercial Product
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:52.529556+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:52.529556+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10, in which it was found that engineers assigned to the design of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but have an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design, and may offer their personal opinions and comments to management.
textreferences: What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10, in which it was found that engineers assigned to the design of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but have an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design, and may offer their personal opinions and comments to management.
usedby: BER to distinguish the present case from a prior ruling and clarify the scope of permissible engineer advocacy
usedincontext: Cited as a distinguishing precedent: in Case 61-10, engineers assigned to design a lower-quality commercial product should not question the company's business decision but must point out safety hazards and may offer personal opinions to management. The current case is distinguished because Engineer A is not challenging a specific company product but advocating for raising quality standards across all products in the public interest.
version: 1961
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.301037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Case 61-10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318986
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Case 61-10 Distinguishability — Industry-Wide Advocacy vs. Internal Product Dissent
type: Industry-WideAdvocacyInternalProductDissentBERPrecedentDistinguishabilityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethics board explicitly distinguished Case 61-10 — which addressed engineers questioning a specific company's business decision about a specific product — from the Citizens Committee scenario, which involved industry-wide advocacy not tied to any particular company or product.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Ethics Board and parties applying BER Case 61-10 to Citizens Committee scenario
constraintclass: Industry-Wide Advocacy Internal Product Dissent BER Precedent Distinguishability Constraint
constraintstatement: The ethics board was constrained to distinguish BER Case 61-10 (internal product dissent — engineers should not question company's business decision on lower-quality product) from the Citizens Committee scenario (industry-wide legislative advocacy for minimum quality standards across all products), prohibiting mechanical application of the internal-dissent precedent to the industry-wide advocacy context.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Discussion; BER Case 61-10
sourcetext: What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10, in which it was found that engineers assigned to the design of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision
temporalscope: At the time of ethics board analysis of the Citizens Committee case
textreferences: In this case, we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product.
textreferences: What Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.
textreferences: What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10, in which it was found that engineers assigned to the design of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.301645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Case 61-10 Precedent Distinction — Industry-Wide vs. Employer-Specific Advocacy
type: Industry-WideAdvocacyDistinguishedfromEmployer-SpecificProductDissentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: During the ethics board's deliberation and ruling on this case
affectedparties: Citizens Committee members
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Ethics Board
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:35:38.472109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:35:38.472109+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10
stateclass: Industry-Wide Advocacy Distinguished from Employer-Specific Product Dissent State
subject: The ethical analysis distinguishing Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities from the Case 61-10 internal product dissent scenario
terminatedby: Ethics board's formal ruling distinguishing the two scenarios and affirming Engineer A's entitlement to engage in industry-wide civic advocacy
textreferences: In this case, we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product.
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code
textreferences: What Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.
textreferences: What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10
triggeringevent: Potential applicability of Case 61-10 precedent (engineers should not question company's business decision on product quality) to Engineer A's industry-wide advocacy activities
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.300037
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Case 61-10 ruling before Discussion analysis of current case
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.315311
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Case 82 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.315341
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

CausalLink_Continuing Advocacy Despite Th
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322600
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

CausalLink_Ethics Board Evaluating Engine
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322633
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

CausalLink_Joining Citizens Committee Adv
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322664
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

CausalLink_Keeping Advocacy Statements Ge
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

CausalLink_Threatening Discharge for Advo
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318957
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Citizens Committee Engineer Colleagues
type: ProductQualityStandardsLegislativeAdvocateEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'group': 'Citizens Committee', 'advocacy_basis': 'Sincere belief in serving public interest', 'employer_risk': 'Potential punitive action from respective employers'}
caseinvolvement: Fellow engineer-members of the Citizens Committee who, alongside Engineer A, advocate in good faith for legislative minimum quality standards for commercial products, acting under the same public responsibility obligations and facing the same potential employer retaliation.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:35:00.046269+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:35:00.046269+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Commercial Product Manufacturing Engineering Employer'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate Engineer
sourcetext: engineer-members of the Citizens Committee
textreferences: Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service
textreferences: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity
textreferences: engineer-members of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.309495
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Citizens Committee Engineer Members
type: ProductQualityStandardsLegislativeAdvocateEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'membership': 'Multiple engineers from different companies', 'organization': 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products', 'advocacy_focus': 'Minimum standards for commercial products'}
caseinvolvement: Group of engineers from multiple companies who share Engineer A's concerns about inferior commercial products and co-founded the Citizens Committee for Quality Products to advocate for minimum product quality standards.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:07.328126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:07.328126+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'colleague_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
textreferences: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
textreferences: They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products'
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.308363
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Citizens Committee Engineers Collective Civic Advocacy Permissibility
type: ProductQualityStandardsLegislativeAdvocacyPublicWelfarePermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineers from multiple companies formed the Citizens Committee and collectively advocated for legislative minimum standards for commercial products, reflecting a shared professional concern about inferior products attributable to inadequate engineering.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Citizens Committee engineer members
obligationclass: Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocacy Public Welfare Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: The engineer members of the Citizens Committee for Quality Products — drawn from multiple companies — were ethically permitted to collectively advocate for minimum product quality standards through civic channels, provided each member grounded their advocacy in honest technical assessment and did not disclose confidential employer information.
sourcetext: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
temporalscope: Throughout the Citizens Committee's formation and advocacy activities
textreferences: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
textreferences: They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products.'
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.304833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Citizens Committee Engineers Employment Jeopardy Acceptance Civic Advocacy
type: ProductWelfareAdvocacyEmploymentLossAcceptanceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethics board explicitly acknowledged that Citizens Committee engineers may place their employment positions in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers, and that the code would not rescue them from punitive employer action.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A and Citizens Committee engineer members
obligationclass: Product Welfare Advocacy Employment Loss Acceptance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A and Citizens Committee colleagues were obligated to recognize and accept that their civic advocacy activities — while ethically permissible and consonant with the code — could place their employment positions in jeopardy, and that the ethics code could not rescue them from employer retaliation because the code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
sourcetext: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
temporalscope: Throughout the Citizens Committee advocacy activities and upon deciding to continue them
textreferences: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.307048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Citizens Committee Engineers Multi-Company Collective Civic Advocacy Coordination
type: Multi-CompanyEngineerCollectiveCivicAdvocacyCoordinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Company Engineer Collective Civic Advocacy Coordination Capability
capabilitystatement: The engineer members of the Citizens Committee for Quality Products demonstrated the capability to coordinate across multiple companies to form and operate a collective civic advocacy body, recognizing that cross-company coordination for public welfare legislative advocacy is ethically permissible and does not constitute improper collusion.
casecontext: Engineers from multiple companies coordinated civic advocacy for product quality standards, requiring assessment of the permissibility of cross-employer coordination
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Formation of the Citizens Committee for Quality Products by engineers from multiple companies, coordinating public statements and legislative advocacy for minimum product quality standards
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way.
textreferences: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way.
textreferences: They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products.'
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.311768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Citizens Committee Engineers Profession Public Welfare Mandate Code Grounding
type: ProfessionPublicWelfareMandateCodeProvisionGroundingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Profession Public Welfare Mandate Code Provision Grounding Capability
capabilitystatement: The Citizens Committee engineer members collectively demonstrated the capability to ground their industry-wide legislative advocacy in the professional obligation to devote interests to public welfare and seek constructive civic service opportunities, consistent with the ethics code's public welfare mandate.
casecontext: Citizens Committee engineers' collective civic advocacy for legislative product quality standards
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Collectively organizing and participating in the Citizens Committee for Quality Products to advocate for legislative minimum quality standards, conduct found by the ethics board to be in accord with Section 2(b) of the Code
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.303832
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Citizens Committee Engineers Public Welfare Civic Advocacy Permissibility
type: ProductQualityStandardsLegislativeAdvocacyPublicWelfarePermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A co-founded the Citizens Committee for Quality Products, made public statements, wrote to newspapers, and testified before legislative bodies in support of minimum quality standards for commercial products.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A and Citizens Committee engineer members
obligationclass: Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocacy Public Welfare Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A and Citizens Committee colleagues were entitled under the ethics code to organize and participate in civic advocacy for minimum legislative product quality standards, provided they acted in good faith and believed they were serving the public interest.
sourcetext: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
temporalscope: Throughout the Citizens Committee advocacy activities
textreferences: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
textreferences: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.313721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Citizens Committee Engineers — Civic Service Obligation Activation Under Section 2(b)
type: ProfessionalEthicsCivicDutyElevationPrincipleConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethics board affirmed that what the Citizens Committee engineers were doing was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b), which requires engineers to seek opportunities for constructive civic service and work for the advancement of safety, health, and well-being of their community.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A and Citizens Committee engineer-members
constraintclass: Professional Ethics Civic Duty Elevation Principle Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A and Citizens Committee colleagues were constrained to recognize that their civic advocacy activities — organizing citizen committees, making public statements, and testifying before legislative bodies for minimum product quality standards — represented the elevation of civic duty to professional ethical conduct under Section 2(b)'s mandate to seek opportunities for constructive civic service.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
importance: high
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(b); NSPE BER Discussion
sourcetext: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
temporalscope: Throughout Citizens Committee advocacy activities
textreferences: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.314745
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Duty Invoked for Citizens Committee Activities
type: CivicDutyElevationtoProfessionalEthicalDutyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Citizens Committee for Quality Products civic advocacy
appliedto: Legislative testimony and public statements on product quality standards
balancingwith: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Suppression of Legitimate Public Advocacy
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The ethics board treated the Citizens Committee engineers' civic advocacy activities — organizing citizen groups, making public statements, writing to newspapers, testifying before legislative bodies — as not merely permissible but affirmatively sanctioned by the professional ethics code as expressions of the mandatory duty to seek constructive service in civic affairs
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Section 2(b)'s mandate to 'seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs' elevates what would otherwise be voluntary civic participation to a professional ethical obligation — engineers are not merely permitted but are professionally expected to engage in such activities
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Ethical Duty Principle
sourcetext: He shall seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of his community.
tensionresolution: The professional duty to engage in civic affairs for public welfare advancement was found to override employer commercial embarrassment concerns
textreferences: He shall seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of his community.
textreferences: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.312797
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Ethical Duty Invoked by Engineer A's Legislative Advocacy
type: CivicDutyElevationtoProfessionalEthicalDutyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Citizens Committee for Quality Products formation and advocacy
appliedto: Legislative testimony on minimum product standards
appliedto: Letters to local newspapers
balancingwith: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Suppression of Legitimate Public Advocacy
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's participation in the Citizens Committee and testimony before legislative bodies represents the elevation of what any civic-minded citizen might do — advocate for better product standards — to a professional ethical obligation grounded in the engineer's special technical competence and public welfare mandate.
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The engineering profession's public welfare mandate transforms Engineer A's civic advocacy from a personal political preference into a professional obligation. The Citizens Committee activities are not merely permissible — they are affirmatively supported by the ethics code's purpose of elevating civic-minded conduct to professional duty.
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Ethical Duty Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products.
tensionresolution: The civic duty elevated to professional duty supports Engineer A's continued advocacy; the employer's embarrassment concern does not override this elevated obligation.
textreferences: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
textreferences: They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products.' Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.296738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Code Individual-Not-Organization Applicability — Employer Cannot Be Held to Code
type: CodeIndividual-Not-OrganizationApplicabilityClarificationActiveState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: Throughout the ethics board's analysis and ruling
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Ethics Board
affectedparties: Shared employer company
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:35:38.472109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:35:38.472109+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
stateclass: Code Individual-Not-Organization Applicability Clarification Active State
subject: The clarification that the professional code applies only to individual engineers (Engineer A, Engineer B) and not to their shared employer company
terminatedby: Ethics board ruling confirming this limitation
textreferences: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
triggeringevent: Recognition that punitive employer action against engineers engaged in civic advocacy cannot be remedied through the Code because the Code does not apply to companies
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.300339
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer A was not in violation of the Code of Ethics.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320789
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 203
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(b)
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A was not in violation, his conduct actually satisfied an affirmative professional obligation rather than merely exercising a permissible personal freedom. By grounding his advocacy in engineering expertise — identifying inadequate engineering as the root cause of product quality decline — and by channeling that expertise through legislative testimony and public communication, Engineer A elevated what might otherwise be ordinary civic participation into a professionally mandated act under the public welfare paramount principle. The Board's validation therefore carries a stronger normative weight than a simple 'no violation' finding suggests: it implicitly recognizes that engineers who possess relevant technical knowledge and observe systemic public welfare risks may be duty-bound, not merely permitted, to act. This distinction matters because it affects how future cases should be evaluated — an engineer who silently tolerates a known systemic quality deficiency affecting public welfare may face a different ethical calculus than one who simply declines to join a civic committee.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320931
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 1
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's approval of Engineer A's conduct rests critically on two factual constraints that, if altered, would likely change the outcome: first, that his advocacy was industry-wide and did not identify XYZ Manufacturing Company or its specific products; and second, that his factual claims were grounded in genuine engineering observation rather than speculation or bad faith. These constraints define the outer boundary of the protection the Board's ruling affords. If Engineer A had named his employer's products, the faithful agent obligation would have been directly implicated, and the employer embarrassment non-justification principle would have had to compete with a legitimate employer interest in not being publicly singled out by its own employee. Similarly, if his claims had not been grounded in verifiable engineering evidence — for example, if he had made exaggerated or unsubstantiated assertions before a legislative body — the good faith sincerity sufficiency standard would have been undermined, and the public interest justification for his advocacy would have collapsed. The Board's ruling therefore creates a conditional safe harbor, not an unconditional one, and engineers relying on it must ensure both the generality and the factual integrity of their public statements.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321007
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(b)
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Citizens Committee's multi-employer organizational structure adds an ethically significant dimension that the Board did not explicitly address. By forming an advocacy group that spans multiple companies, the participating engineers created a collective voice that is structurally insulated from any single employer's retaliatory pressure — no one company can silence the committee by threatening one member. This structure also reduces the risk that the advocacy will be perceived as a disguised attack on a specific employer, reinforcing the industry-wide generality that the Board found ethically decisive. However, the same structure introduces a potential conflict of interest concern: if any member of the Citizens Committee stood to benefit commercially from the imposition of minimum product quality standards — for example, if their employer produced higher-quality goods that would gain competitive advantage from such legislation — the good faith sincerity of the advocacy could be questioned. The Board's ruling implicitly assumes that the committee members' motivations were genuinely public-spirited, but a more complete analysis would require scrutiny of whether any participants had undisclosed financial interests in the legislative outcomes they were advocating.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321081
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 302
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 1
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board's finding that Engineer B violated the Code of Ethics is strengthened by recognizing that Engineer B's conduct was independently wrongful on two distinct grounds that the Board may have conflated. The first ground is the suppression of a subordinate's civic advocacy that the Code affirmatively protects — this is a violation regardless of Engineer B's intent or the employer's interests. The second ground is the use of supervisory authority to subordinate the public welfare paramount principle to employer reputational interests — this is a violation of the substantive hierarchy the Code establishes between professional obligations and employment loyalty. These two grounds are analytically separable: an engineer who discouraged a subordinate's civic advocacy through persuasion rather than threats might implicate the second ground without clearly violating the first. By using an explicit discharge threat, Engineer B violated both simultaneously. This distinction matters because it clarifies that the Code's prohibition is not merely about the coercive form of Engineer B's conduct but also about its substantive purpose — protecting employer embarrassment is simply not a value the Code recognizes as capable of overriding public welfare advocacy, regardless of how that protection is pursued.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 403
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's condemnation of Engineer B's conduct, while morally authoritative, creates no enforceable legal protection for Engineer A and no binding sanction against Engineer B beyond professional censure. The Code of Ethics explicitly does not apply to organizations, meaning XYZ Manufacturing Company itself cannot be held to the Code's standards even if it directed Engineer B to issue the discharge threat. This gap between ethical condemnation and practical remedy is significant: Engineer A could be lawfully discharged for his advocacy in most employment-at-will jurisdictions, and the Board's ruling would not prevent that outcome. The ruling's practical value is therefore primarily expressive and precedential — it signals to the engineering profession that supervisors who suppress subordinates' civic advocacy act dishonorably, and it provides a professional standard against which future conduct can be measured. Engineers in Engineer A's position should understand that the Board's ruling validates their conduct and condemns their supervisor's, but does not guarantee their employment security. The absence of an enforcement mechanism also means that the ethical deterrent effect of the ruling depends entirely on the professional culture of the engineering community and the reputational consequences that individual engineers like Engineer B face for Code violations.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 204
answers question3: 302
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 1
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's analysis implicitly resolves a genuine tension between the faithful agent obligation and the public welfare paramount principle by establishing a hierarchy: when civic advocacy is industry-wide, factually grounded, and does not identify the employer, the employer's interest in avoiding embarrassment does not rise to the level of a legitimate competing obligation capable of constraining the engineer's professional conduct. However, the Board did not address the more difficult scenario in which Engineer B himself may have been acting under pressure from XYZ Manufacturing's leadership to suppress Engineer A's activities. If Engineer B was directed by his own superiors to issue the discharge threat, he faced the same structural dilemma as Engineer A — a conflict between employer loyalty and professional ethics — but resolved it in the opposite direction. The Code's answer to Engineer B's dilemma is clear: the faithful agent obligation operates only within ethical limits, and suppressing a subordinate's Code-protected civic advocacy falls outside those limits regardless of the source of the instruction. This means that Engineer B could not have excused his conduct by pointing to superior orders, and the Board's ruling implicitly demands that engineers at every supervisory level resist employer pressure to violate the Code's public welfare provisions, even at personal professional cost.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320668
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_2
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
conclusion number: 2
conclusion text: Engineer B was in violation of the Code of Ethics.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 401
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(b) (Civic Service Obligation)
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: Engineer A's advocacy would likely cross an ethical line if he began specifically naming XYZ Manufacturing's products as examples of inferior quality, because at that point his public statements would cease to be general civic advocacy and would instead constitute a targeted attack on his employer's commercial reputation using his insider position. The Board's validation of Engineer A's conduct rested critically on the fact that he kept his statements industry-wide and did not identify any specific company. Additionally, if Engineer A's factual claims about product quality were not grounded in verifiable engineering evidence — for example, if he exaggerated defect rates or misrepresented engineering data to legislative bodies — he would violate the Code's implicit requirement that professional testimony be objective and truthful. The ethical protection afforded to his advocacy is therefore conditional on two boundaries: generality of target and factual integrity of content. Crossing either boundary would transform protected civic advocacy into conduct that harms both his employer and the profession's credibility.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.319764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(b) (Civic Service Obligation)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: The Code of Ethics does not appear to impose an affirmative obligation on Engineer A to exhaust internal channels before engaging in external civic advocacy, particularly when his advocacy is industry-wide rather than directed at his specific employer. The Board's analysis draws a meaningful distinction between this case and BER Case 61-10, where the engineer's concern was directed at his own employer's specific products. In that internal-dispute scenario, internal escalation might be a prerequisite or at least a relevant factor. Here, however, Engineer A's concern is systemic — he believes the entire industry trend toward inferior products requires legislative remedy — and no internal channel within XYZ Manufacturing could address an industry-wide problem. External civic advocacy is therefore not merely permissible as a first resort; it may be the only logically appropriate forum for the kind of systemic, multi-company concern Engineer A is raising. The Code's civic service obligation under Section 2(b) further supports treating external legislative engagement as a primary rather than secondary avenue when the subject matter transcends any single employer's control.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: The Board's ruling that Engineer B violated the Code of Ethics creates a moral condemnation rather than an enforceable legal protection for Engineer A. Because the Code of Ethics applies only to individual engineers and not to the employing organization, XYZ Manufacturing Company itself cannot be sanctioned under the Code if it directs or ratifies Engineer B's discharge threat. If Engineer B carries out the termination, Engineer A's practical recourse would depend entirely on external legal frameworks — such as whistleblower protection statutes, labor law, or contractual provisions — none of which are within the Board's jurisdiction or addressed by its ruling. The Board's finding does, however, carry significant professional weight: Engineer B could face NSPE disciplinary proceedings, and the ruling establishes a clear professional norm that supervisors who suppress subordinates' good-faith civic advocacy are acting unethically. This moral condemnation may deter similar conduct and could be cited in professional licensing proceedings, but it does not directly restore Engineer A's employment or prevent the discharge from occurring.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(b) (Civic Service Obligation)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: The Citizens Committee's multi-company, collective advocacy structure is ethically significant in ways that generally strengthen rather than complicate the engineers' professional obligations. By organizing across employer boundaries, the Committee signals that its advocacy is genuinely systemic and public-interest-oriented rather than a disguised attack on any single employer. This cross-employer composition makes it structurally harder for any one company to claim that the advocacy is targeted retaliation or a competitive maneuver. However, the collective structure could theoretically raise conflict-of-interest concerns if, for example, engineers from competing companies used the Committee's platform to advocate for standards that would disproportionately burden rivals while benefiting their own employers. In this case, no such conflict is evident — the advocacy is for minimum quality standards that would apply industry-wide — so the collective structure reinforces rather than undermines the ethical legitimacy of the engineers' conduct. The Board's implicit acceptance of the Committee's multi-company composition suggests that coordinated civic advocacy is permissible provided it remains genuinely oriented toward public welfare rather than competitive advantage.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: A genuine tension exists between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle in Engineer A's situation, but the Board resolves it by recognizing that the faithful agent obligation operates only within ethical limits. Engineer A's civic advocacy, though it predictably embarrasses XYZ Manufacturing, does not breach his duty as a faithful agent because he has not disclosed proprietary information, has not named his employer, and is not acting in a capacity that directly conflicts with his employment duties. The Code's hierarchy places public welfare above employer loyalty when the two conflict, and the Board implicitly holds that an employer's commercial interest in avoiding embarrassment does not rise to the level of a legitimate constraint that can override an engineer's civic obligations. The tension is therefore resolved structurally by the Code itself: employer loyalty is a bounded duty, and civic advocacy for public welfare — conducted without employer-specific disclosure — falls outside those bounds rather than within them.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321465
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(b) (Civic Service Obligation)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202 and Q203: These two tensions reveal an important ambiguity in the Board's reasoning. If Engineer A's civic advocacy is merely a personal freedom — something he is permitted but not required to do — then it is harder to argue that this freedom categorically overrides the employer's legitimate interest in avoiding public embarrassment. However, the Board appears to elevate Engineer A's legislative testimony from a mere personal freedom to a professional ethical duty under Section 2(b)'s civic service obligation, which resolves the tension in Q202 by making the advocacy obligatory rather than optional. Regarding Q203, the Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity Sufficiency principle evaluates Engineer A's advocacy by his honest intent rather than by a demonstrable safety threshold, which is appropriate given that the concern here is product quality and durability rather than imminent physical danger. The elevation of civic duty to professional duty and the sincerity-sufficiency standard work in tandem: together they establish that an engineer who genuinely believes industry-wide product quality harms the public, and who advocates for legislative remedies in good faith, has fulfilled his professional obligations regardless of whether he can prove a specific safety violation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321557
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The tension between the Employment Loss Acceptance principle applied to Engineer A and the Engineer Pressure Resistance principle applied to Engineer B reveals a structural asymmetry in the Code's application. Engineer A is expected to accept personal career risk as the cost of fulfilling his civic obligations, yet Engineer B — who may himself face employer pressure to suppress Engineer A's advocacy — is simultaneously held to a standard that requires him to resist that very pressure. The Code does not excuse Engineer B's conduct on the grounds that he may have been acting under organizational compulsion; the Supervisor Ethics Code Binding Non-Exemption principle makes clear that Engineer B's professional obligations are independent of his employer's directives. This asymmetry is ethically coherent: both engineers are individually bound by the Code, and both must accept personal professional risk in order to comply with it. Engineer B cannot invoke his own employment jeopardy as a defense for threatening Engineer A's employment, just as Engineer A cannot invoke his employment jeopardy as a reason to abandon his civic advocacy. The Code thus imposes symmetrical courage requirements on both engineers, regardless of the organizational pressures each faces.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321629
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(b) (Civic Service Obligation)
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A did fulfill a categorical duty by joining the Citizens Committee and advocating for minimum product quality standards. The Kantian framework supports this conclusion on two grounds. First, the maxim 'engineers should advocate publicly for product quality standards that protect the public' is universalizable — if all engineers with relevant expertise acted similarly, the result would be better-informed legislative processes and higher product standards, which is a coherent and beneficial universal law. Second, Engineer A treated the public as an end in itself rather than merely as a means, by seeking legislative protections for consumers rather than using his advocacy for personal gain. The personal employment consequences he risked reinforce rather than undermine the deontological analysis: a duty fulfilled despite significant personal cost is precisely the kind of action Kantian ethics regards as morally praiseworthy. The Board's validation of Engineer A's conduct is therefore consistent with a deontological reading of the Code's public welfare provisions.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321700
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B violated a categorical duty to refrain from suppressing a subordinate's good-faith civic advocacy, and his good-faith intent to protect the employer does not excuse that violation under the Code. The deontological analysis is unambiguous here: the maxim 'supervisors may threaten subordinates with discharge to prevent civic advocacy that embarrasses the employer' cannot be universalized without destroying the professional independence that makes engineering expertise valuable to society. If all supervisors acted on this maxim, engineers would be effectively silenced as civic actors whenever their advocacy touched on industry practices, which would undermine the public welfare function the Code is designed to protect. Engineer B's subjective good faith — his genuine belief that he was protecting XYZ Manufacturing's legitimate interests — is morally irrelevant under a deontological framework because the wrongness of his action lies in the nature of the act itself, not in his intentions. The Code's binding force on supervisors is not diminished by the supervisor's benevolent motives.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321776
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(b) (Civic Service Obligation)
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's industry-wide advocacy through the Citizens Committee plausibly produces greater net public benefit than harm, though the calculus is not without complexity. On the benefit side, successful legislative advocacy for minimum product quality standards would protect consumers from inferior products, reduce waste, and potentially improve public safety — benefits that accrue broadly across society. On the harm side, the primary cost is the chilling effect on engineer-employer relationships: if engineers fear discharge for civic advocacy, fewer will engage in it, reducing the quality of expert input into legislative processes. However, the Board's ruling itself mitigates this chilling effect by establishing that such advocacy is protected under the Code, thereby reassuring engineers that civic engagement is professionally sanctioned. The net consequentialist calculus therefore favors the Board's validation: the ruling simultaneously enables the direct benefits of Engineer A's advocacy and reduces the systemic chilling effect that would otherwise suppress similar advocacy by other engineers.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321845
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer B failed to demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of a supervisor. A virtuous supervisor in Engineer B's position would have recognized that Engineer A's civic advocacy, though inconvenient for the employer, reflected the kind of professional engagement the engineering profession is meant to embody. Instead of supporting or at minimum tolerating that advocacy, Engineer B chose to protect the employer's reputational interests by threatening a subordinate's livelihood — an act that reflects the vices of institutional conformity and moral timidity rather than the virtues of integrity, fairness, and professional courage. The virtue ethics framework is particularly illuminating here because it focuses on character: Engineer B's willingness to use his supervisory power to suppress good-faith civic advocacy reveals a disposition that prioritizes organizational loyalty over professional principle. A virtuous engineer-supervisor would have found a way to manage the employer's concerns without compromising a subordinate's ethical obligations, perhaps by communicating the employer's discomfort to Engineer A while making clear that the final decision about civic engagement was Engineer A's to make.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.321913
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q401: The Board's ethical analysis would very likely have changed if Engineer A had specifically named XYZ Manufacturing's products during his Citizens Committee advocacy. The critical ethical protection in this case rests on Engineer A's deliberate generality — he spoke to an industry-wide trend without identifying his employer or any specific company. Had he named XYZ Manufacturing, his advocacy would have crossed from general civic engagement into employer-specific public criticism, raising serious questions about his duty as a faithful agent and trustee. At that point, the analysis would more closely resemble BER Case 61-10, where an engineer's internal dissent about his own employer's products was at issue. Engineer A would then face the obligation to have first raised his concerns through internal channels, and his public naming of the employer could constitute a breach of the confidentiality and loyalty obligations that the faithful agent duty imposes. Engineer B's discharge threat, while still ethically troubling in its coercive form, might have been viewed as a more proportionate response to a more direct reputational harm.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322004
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q402: If Engineer A had raised his product quality concerns exclusively through internal company channels rather than forming the Citizens Committee, the Board would likely not have found him in violation of his duty as a faithful agent — internal advocacy is generally the least disruptive path and would have been consistent with his employer loyalty obligations. However, the more important question is whether Engineer B's discharge threat would have been ethically justified in that scenario. The answer is almost certainly no: threatening an employee with discharge for raising good-faith product quality concerns internally would be even more clearly a Code violation, as it would suppress the kind of internal professional judgment that the faithful agent obligation is designed to protect. The ethical wrong in Engineer B's conduct is not contingent on whether Engineer A's advocacy was internal or external — it lies in the use of employment coercion to silence an engineer's good-faith professional concerns. Internal advocacy would, however, have eliminated the employer embarrassment rationale entirely, making Engineer B's threat even harder to justify on any grounds.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322072
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 103
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If the NSPE Code of Ethics were interpreted as applying to organizations as well as individuals, XYZ Manufacturing Company could potentially have been found in violation for directing or ratifying Engineer B's discharge threat. The company's conduct — using the threat of employment termination to suppress an engineer's good-faith civic advocacy — would constitute an organizational interference with the professional obligations the Code imposes on individual engineers. However, the Board explicitly clarifies that the Code applies only to individual engineers, not to their employing organizations, and this limitation is not merely a technicality but reflects a deliberate structural choice: the Code governs professional conduct, and only licensed engineers can be held to professional standards. Extending Code applicability to organizations would require a fundamentally different regulatory framework — one more akin to corporate ethics codes or statutory whistleblower protections. The practical implication is that the Code's moral condemnation of Engineer B's conduct does not reach the organizational actor that may have directed or incentivized it, leaving a significant gap in the protective framework the Board's ruling otherwise establishes.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(b) (Civic Service Obligation)
cited provision3: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Engineer A continued his Citizens Committee advocacy after being discharged by Engineer B, the Board would likely view his post-termination advocacy as ethically unproblematic and perhaps even more clearly protected than his pre-termination advocacy. The absence of an employment relationship would eliminate the faithful agent obligation entirely, removing the only significant counterweight to his civic advocacy freedom. Without an employer-employee relationship, Engineer A would have no confidentiality, loyalty, or conflict-of-interest obligations to XYZ Manufacturing that could constrain his public statements — provided he continued to rely on publicly available information rather than proprietary knowledge acquired during his employment. The ethical obligations applicable to his public statements would then be governed primarily by the general professional duty of truthfulness and the public welfare paramount principle, both of which support continued advocacy. The Board's ruling implicitly anticipates this scenario by affirming that the Employment Loss Acceptance principle is a recognized cost of civic advocacy — meaning the Code treats post-termination continuation of such advocacy as a foreseeable and ethically acceptable outcome rather than a new ethical problem.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322307
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 101
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The central principle tension in this case — between the Faithful Agent Obligation requiring Engineer A to serve XYZ Manufacturing's interests and the Public Welfare Paramount principle requiring engineers to prioritize public benefit — was resolved by drawing a boundary at employer identification. Because Engineer A kept his Citizens Committee advocacy general and industry-wide, never naming XYZ Manufacturing or its specific products, the Board found no genuine conflict between the two principles: an engineer can simultaneously be a faithful agent and a public welfare advocate so long as his civic speech does not weaponize proprietary or employer-specific knowledge against his employer. The case thus teaches that the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle are not inherently opposed; they occupy different domains, and conflict arises only when an engineer's public advocacy crosses from systemic critique into targeted employer exposure. The Loyalty Boundary principle functions as the demarcation line, and Engineer A remained on the permissible side of it.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322391
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 203
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(b) (Civic Service Obligation)
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: This case establishes a hierarchy among three interacting principles — Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Ethical Duty, Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom, and Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity Sufficiency — and the hierarchy is instructive. The Board treated Engineer A's legislative testimony not merely as a personal liberty but as an affirmative professional obligation elevated by the Code, meaning the Civic Duty Elevation principle outranks the mere freedom framing. However, the Board simultaneously applied the Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency principle to evaluate whether Engineer A's advocacy met the ethical threshold, suggesting that the elevation from personal freedom to professional duty does not impose a heightened evidentiary burden: sincere, fact-grounded concern about product quality suffices, even absent a demonstrable safety crisis. The synthesis is that civic advocacy on engineering-related public welfare matters is both a right and a duty, but the duty is satisfied by honest, general, technically informed advocacy — it does not require the engineer to prove a specific safety violation before speaking. This resolution has significant implications for Q203: the two principles are not in conflict but are complementary, with sincerity sufficiency serving as the minimum threshold for a duty that is already elevated above mere personal preference.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 403
cited provision1: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
cited provision2: NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The most underappreciated principle interaction in this case concerns the asymmetric application of the Engineer Pressure Resistance principle and the Employment Loss Acceptance as Cost of Public Welfare Advocacy principle. The Board applied Employment Loss Acceptance to Engineer A — effectively requiring him to bear personal career risk as the price of ethical civic advocacy — while simultaneously applying Engineer Pressure Resistance to condemn Engineer B for issuing the very threat that creates that risk. This asymmetry reveals a structural tension: the Code demands that individual engineers absorb the costs of public welfare advocacy while also demanding that supervisors refrain from imposing those costs. The two principles are mutually reinforcing in theory but create a practical gap in enforcement, because the Code binds only individual engineers and not the employing organization. As Q103 and Q403 highlight, Engineer A has no enforceable Code-based remedy against XYZ Manufacturing itself if Engineer B carries out the discharge; the Board's condemnation of Engineer B is a moral judgment without institutional enforcement teeth against the corporate actor directing the retaliation. The case thus teaches that the Code's principle architecture is internally coherent but externally incomplete: it can articulate what engineers must do and must not do, but it cannot compel the organizational environment to honor those obligations, leaving the Employment Loss Acceptance principle as the de facto burden-bearer for a gap the Code cannot close.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322563
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Continuing Advocacy Despite Threat
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305000
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Should Engineer A engage in public civic advocacy through the Citizens Committee — including media statements and legislative testimony on minimum product quality standards — or limit his product quality concerns to internal company channels to protect his employer's interests?
focus: Engineer A, having observed a systemic industry-wide trend toward inferior commercial products attributable to inadequate engineering effort, must decide whether to join the Citizens Committee for Quality Products and become a leading public spokesman — including writing to newspapers and testifying before legislative bodies — or to confine his concerns to internal company channels, given that his employer XYZ Manufacturing will likely be embarrassed by the advocacy even though he does not name the company or its products specifically.
option1: Join the Citizens Committee, become a leading spokesman, and testify before legislative bodies on minimum product quality standards, keeping all statements industry-wide and grounded in verifiable engineering observation without naming XYZ Manufacturing or any specific company.
option2: Raise product quality concerns exclusively through internal XYZ Manufacturing channels — such as engineering reports or management discussions — without forming or joining any external civic advocacy group, thereby preserving the employer relationship and avoiding public embarrassment.
option3: Join the Citizens Committee as a non-prominent member, contributing technical knowledge in background advisory capacity without making public statements, writing to media, or testifying before legislative bodies, thereby reducing employer embarrassment while still supporting the civic effort.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318888
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Should Engineer B threaten Engineer A with discharge to stop the Citizens Committee advocacy that embarrasses XYZ Manufacturing, or should he manage the employer's concerns through means that do not suppress Engineer A's Code-protected civic conduct?
focus: Engineer B, as supervisor of Engineer A at XYZ Manufacturing, must decide how to respond to Engineer A's Citizens Committee advocacy that is embarrassing the employer — specifically whether to threaten Engineer A with discharge if he continues, or to find a response that manages the employer's concerns without suppressing Engineer A's Code-protected civic conduct, given that Engineer B may himself be acting under pressure from XYZ Manufacturing's leadership.
option1: Warn Engineer A that continued Citizens Committee activities will result in termination, on the grounds that the advocacy places XYZ Manufacturing in an embarrassing position and that protecting the employer's commercial interests is a legitimate supervisory obligation.
option2: Convey XYZ Manufacturing's discomfort with the advocacy to Engineer A — explaining the employer's reputational concerns and requesting that Engineer A consider the employer's position — while making clear that the final decision about civic engagement is Engineer A's to make and that no employment consequence will follow from continuing lawful, general, factually grounded advocacy.
option3: Refer the matter to XYZ Manufacturing's legal counsel or human resources department to assess whether Engineer A's advocacy constitutes a breach of any employment agreement or confidentiality obligation before taking any supervisory action, thereby deferring the discharge decision pending a formal review of Engineer A's conduct.
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Should Engineer A keep his Citizens Committee advocacy strictly industry-wide and general, or should he name XYZ Manufacturing's products as specific examples of inferior quality to strengthen his legislative testimony?
focus: Engineer A must decide whether to maintain the industry-wide generality of his Citizens Committee advocacy — never naming XYZ Manufacturing or any specific company's products — or to cite his employer's products as concrete examples of the inferior quality trend he is advocating against, given that naming specific products would make his legislative testimony more persuasive and concrete but would cross from systemic civic advocacy into employer-targeted public criticism.
option1: Keep all public statements, media communications, and legislative testimony focused on the systemic industry-wide trend toward inferior products without identifying XYZ Manufacturing, its products, or any other specific company, relying on general engineering observations rather than insider employer-specific knowledge.
option2: Cite specific XYZ Manufacturing products as concrete examples of the inferior quality trend in legislative testimony, on the grounds that specific evidence is more persuasive to legislators and that the public welfare obligation to advocate effectively outweighs the employer's interest in avoiding named criticism.
option3: Reference specific product categories and verifiable engineering data — such as published failure rates, durability test results, or industry standards comparisons — without naming any specific company, thereby strengthening the factual grounding of testimony while preserving the generality boundary that protects the advocacy.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer A continue his Citizens Committee advocacy after receiving Engineer B's discharge threat, accepting the risk of termination, or should he cease the advocacy to protect his employment at XYZ Manufacturing?
focus: Engineer A, having received Engineer B's discharge threat, must decide whether to continue his Citizens Committee advocacy — accepting the personal employment risk as the cost of fulfilling his professional civic obligations — or to cease the advocacy to preserve his employment, given that the Board has not yet ruled and he cannot be certain his conduct will be validated.
option1: Proceed with Citizens Committee activities — including public statements, media letters, and legislative testimony — despite Engineer B's discharge threat, treating the personal employment risk as the recognized cost of fulfilling the professional civic obligation the Code imposes.
option2: Temporarily suspend Citizens Committee activities and seek a formal ethics opinion from NSPE or a state engineering board before continuing, thereby preserving employment while pursuing a ruling that could provide professional validation and reduce the personal risk of continued advocacy.
option3: Discontinue Citizens Committee activities in response to Engineer B's discharge threat, prioritizing employment security and the faithful agent obligation to XYZ Manufacturing over the civic advocacy role, on the grounds that the Code does not require engineers to sacrifice their livelihood for non-safety-critical public welfare concerns.
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318662
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should the Citizens Committee engineers continue their collective multi-employer advocacy structure for minimum product quality standards, or should individual engineers advocate independently to eliminate potential conflict-of-interest concerns arising from the cross-employer composition?
focus: The Citizens Committee for Quality Products — composed of engineers from multiple companies — must decide whether its multi-employer collective advocacy structure is ethically appropriate, or whether individual member engineers should instead advocate independently to avoid potential conflict-of-interest concerns arising from the possibility that some members' employers might commercially benefit from the minimum quality standards the Committee is advocating for.
option1: Maintain the Citizens Committee's cross-employer composition and collective advocacy approach, treating the multi-employer structure as evidence of genuine public-interest orientation that reinforces the industry-wide generality of the advocacy and insulates it from single-employer retaliation.
option2: Require each Committee member to disclose whether their employer would commercially benefit from the minimum quality standards being advocated before participating in public statements or legislative testimony, thereby preserving the collective structure while addressing the conflict-of-interest concern through transparency.
option3: Dissolve the formal Committee structure and have each engineer advocate individually as a private citizen with engineering expertise, eliminating the cross-employer coordination that could raise conflict-of-interest or lobbying-organization concerns while preserving each engineer's individual civic advocacy rights.
role label: Citizens Committee Engineers
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should XYZ Manufacturing treat the Code of Ethics' condemnation of Engineer B's discharge threat as a binding constraint on its employment decision regarding Engineer A, or proceed with the discharge on the grounds that the Code does not apply to organizations and the company retains its at-will employment prerogative?
focus: XYZ Manufacturing Company — acting through Engineer B or its leadership — must decide whether to treat the Code of Ethics' condemnation of Engineer B's discharge threat as a binding professional norm that constrains its employment decisions regarding Engineer A, or to proceed with the discharge on the grounds that the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to the company itself, leaving the employment decision within the company's legal prerogative under at-will employment doctrine.
option1: Voluntarily treat the Code of Ethics' condemnation of Engineer B's discharge threat as a binding professional norm governing the company's employment decisions, rescind the discharge threat, and allow Engineer A to continue his Citizens Committee activities without employment consequence, on the grounds that the company's professional reputation and the integrity of its engineering workforce depend on honoring the Code's public welfare provisions.
option2: Proceed with Engineer A's discharge on the grounds that the Code of Ethics applies only to individual engineers and not to the company, that the company retains its at-will employment prerogative as a legal matter, and that the Board's moral condemnation of Engineer B creates no enforceable legal obligation on the company to retain Engineer A.
option3: Defer the discharge decision pending a legal review of applicable whistleblower protection statutes, labor law, and any contractual provisions that might independently constrain the company's ability to terminate Engineer A for civic advocacy activities, thereby separating the legal enforceability question from the ethical condemnation question before taking irreversible action.
role label: XYZ Manufacturing Company
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318811
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification Invoked Against Engineer B's Threat
type: EmployerEmbarrassmentNon-JustificationforSuppressionofLegitimatePublicAdvocacy
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's threat of discharge against Engineer A
appliedto: XYZ Manufacturing's commercial interest in suppressing Citizens Committee advocacy
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's threat of discharge against Engineer A, premised on protecting XYZ Manufacturing's commercial and reputational interests from the Citizens Committee's public advocacy, was found to constitute an impermissible attempt to subordinate Engineer A's professional public welfare obligations to the employer's commercial self-interest
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The employer's commercial embarrassment or reputational sensitivity — even when sincerely believed by the supervisor to justify the threat — does not constitute an ethically legitimate basis for directing an engineer to cease lawful, factually accurate, and publicly beneficial advocacy
invokedby: Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor
principleclass: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Suppression of Legitimate Public Advocacy
sourcetext: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
tensionresolution: Employer embarrassment interest was found insufficient to override Engineer A's professional public welfare advocacy rights; Engineer B's good intent toward employer did not cure the ethics code violation
textreferences: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
textreferences: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.313288
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification Principle Invoked Against Engineer B's Threat
type: EmployerEmbarrassmentNon-JustificationforSuppressionofLegitimatePublicAdvocacy
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
appliedto: XYZ Manufacturing Company's reputational concern
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's sole stated justification for the discharge threat is that Engineer A is 'putting his employer in an embarrassing position.' Because Engineer A has not named the employer or its products, the embarrassment is purely reputational and commercial — not grounded in any genuine conflict of interest, disclosure of confidential information, or actual harm to the employer's legal or business interests.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle establishes that commercial embarrassment, standing alone, is not a legitimate basis for suppressing an engineer's public welfare advocacy. Engineer B's threat therefore constitutes an improper attempt to use the employment relationship to override Engineer A's professional and civic obligations.
invokedby: Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor
principleclass: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Suppression of Legitimate Public Advocacy
sourcetext: Engineer B warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position, even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company.
tensionresolution: The principle resolves the tension in favor of Engineer A's continued advocacy; the embarrassment rationale is categorically insufficient to justify suppression.
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.298472
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Employer Embarrassment Perceived
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305141
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Employment Loss Acceptance Invoked for Citizens Committee Engineers
type: EmploymentLossAcceptanceasCostofPublicSafetyWhistleblowing
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Citizens Committee engineers' risk of discharge for public advocacy activities
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The ethics board explicitly acknowledged that Citizens Committee engineers may place their employment positions in jeopardy by engaging in public welfare advocacy contrary to employer interests, and found that this foreseeable cost does not diminish the ethical entitlement or obligation to engage in such advocacy
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, the principle extends beyond immediate safety whistleblowing to encompass systemic public welfare advocacy — engineers who engage in code-sanctioned civic advocacy must accept the personal employment risk as a cost of professional integrity, even when the advocacy is not about an immediate safety hazard
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Colleagues
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Employment Loss Acceptance as Cost of Public Safety Whistleblowing
sourcetext: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
tensionresolution: The professional obligation to engage in public welfare advocacy was found to persist despite the foreseeable employment risk; the risk does not diminish the ethical entitlement
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.297390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Employment Loss Acceptance as Cost of Public Welfare Advocacy Invoked for Engineer A
type: EmploymentLossAcceptanceasCostofPublicSafetyWhistleblowing
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's decision whether to continue Citizens Committee activities
appliedto: Engineer B's discharge threat
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A faces a credible threat of discharge for continuing his Citizens Committee activities. The principle acknowledges this cost as real but establishes that it does not diminish the ethical obligation to continue advocacy grounded in public welfare concerns about inferior commercial products.
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: While the principle's label references 'public safety whistleblowing,' its normative core — that foreseeable employment loss does not excuse abandonment of professional ethical obligations — applies equally to public welfare advocacy before legislative bodies. Engineer A must weigh the employment cost against the professional obligation and accept that the ethics code does not permit the threat of discharge to override the advocacy obligation.
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Employment Loss Acceptance as Cost of Public Safety Whistleblowing
sourcetext: Engineer B warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position.
tensionresolution: The principle supports Engineer A's continued advocacy despite the discharge threat; the employment relationship does not create an obligation to abandon legitimate public welfare activities.
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.296893
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer-Citizen-Action-Standard-Instance
type: EngineerCitizenActionStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional engineering society guidance
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Citizen Action Standard — Public Advocacy and Employer Loyalty Constraints
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Citizen Action Standard
sourcetext: Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
textreferences: Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
usedby: Engineer A in justifying public advocacy activities; ethical reviewers assessing Engineer B's threatened discharge
usedincontext: Governs the conditions under which Engineer A may engage in public advocacy as a private citizen without violating employer loyalty obligations, particularly given that he did not name his employer or specific products
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.307443
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer-Civic-Service-Obligation-Instance
type: EngineerCivicServiceObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics / Professional engineering society guidance
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Civic Service Obligation Standard — Community Well-Being Participation
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Civic Service Obligation Standard
sourcetext: They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products.' Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies
textreferences: They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products.' Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies
usedby: Engineer A as basis for forming and leading the Citizens Committee for Quality Products
usedincontext: Establishes Engineer A's affirmative professional obligation to seek opportunities for constructive civic service, including participation in legislative advocacy for product safety and quality standards
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.307566
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer-Employer-Loyalty-vs-Professional-Judgment-Instance
type: EngineerEmployerLoyaltyvs.ProfessionalJudgmentStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: NSPE Code of Ethics / Professional engineering society guidance
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Engineer Employer Loyalty vs. Professional Judgment Standard — Limits of Employer Authority Over Engineer Speech
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Employer Loyalty vs. Professional Judgment Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
usedby: Ethical reviewers assessing whether Engineer B's threatened discharge is ethically permissible
usedincontext: Governs the tension between Engineer A's duty of loyalty to XYZ Manufacturing Company and his independent professional judgment and civic obligations, and the limits of Engineer B's authority to suppress Engineer A's public advocacy
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.302200
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Citizen Action Multi-Stakeholder Consideration
type: CitizenActionStakeholderConsiderationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A weighed his employer's legitimate business interests before engaging in Citizens Committee advocacy, ultimately determining that industry-wide advocacy without employer identification was consistent with his obligations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Citizen Action Stakeholder Consideration Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to carefully consider the interests of all stakeholders — including XYZ Manufacturing's business interests, the public's interest in product quality, and his own continuing ethical obligations — before and during his Citizens Committee advocacy activities.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — faithful agent provisions; citizen action stakeholder consideration precedent
sourcetext: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company
temporalscope: Before and throughout Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
textreferences: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.306013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Citizens Committee Systemic Advocacy Internal Dispute Non-Equivalence Self-Recognition
type: SystemicIndustry-WideAdvocacyvsParticularCompanyProductDisputeFactualDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Systemic Industry-Wide Advocacy vs Particular Company Product Dispute Factual Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that his Citizens Committee activities — advocating for industry-wide legislative minimum quality standards — were fundamentally different from questioning XYZ Manufacturing's specific business decisions, and thus governed by different ethical principles.
casecontext: Engineer A's decision to pursue industry-wide civic advocacy rather than internal company product dissent
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Organizing and leading the Citizens Committee for Quality Products to advocate for legislative standards affecting all products across the industry, rather than internally challenging XYZ Manufacturing's specific product decisions
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In this case, we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product.
textreferences: In this case, we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product.
textreferences: What Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.303208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Civic Advocacy Employer Loyalty Boundary Self-Assessment
type: EngineerCivicAdvocacyEmployerLoyaltyBoundarySelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineer Civic Advocacy Employer Loyalty Boundary Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to weigh his employer's legitimate business interests before engaging in Citizens Committee advocacy, and correctly determined that his advocacy — which did not name XYZ Manufacturing or any specific company — did not cross the employer loyalty boundary.
casecontext: Engineer A navigated the boundary between employer loyalty and civic advocacy rights while facing discharge threats from Engineer B
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Conducting advocacy activities without mentioning his employer or any specific company, thereby limiting actual harm to employer interests while pursuing public welfare goals
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.298015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Civic Advocacy Employer Non-Interference Right
type: EngineerExtra-EmploymentCivicAdvocacyEmployerNon-InterferenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities were conducted without disclosure of confidential employer information and without naming XYZ Manufacturing or any specific company; the sole basis for the discharge threat was employer embarrassment.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: XYZ Manufacturing Company / Engineer B
obligationclass: Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Employer Non-Interference Obligation
obligationstatement: XYZ Manufacturing Company and Engineer B were obligated to recognize and respect Engineer A's right to engage in extra-employment civic advocacy through the Citizens Committee — including public statements, newspaper letters, and legislative testimony — without threatening discharge, given that Engineer A had not disclosed confidential employer information and had not named specific companies.
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities and at the time of Engineer B's discharge warning
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.310040
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Civic Advocacy Employment Jeopardy Personal Acceptance
type: ProductQualityPublicWelfareCivicAdvocacyEmploymentJeopardyAcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A faced a credible discharge threat from his supervisor for continuing Citizens Committee activities, requiring him to weigh employment security against civic advocacy obligations.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Product Quality Public Welfare Civic Advocacy Employment Jeopardy Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, in continuing his Citizens Committee activities after Engineer B's discharge threat, was constrained to recognize and accept that potential employment loss is a foreseeable personal cost of civic advocacy for public welfare standards, and that this cost does not ethically excuse abandonment of advocacy grounded in genuine public welfare concern.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Section 2 (public welfare paramount), Section 2(b) (civic service obligation); BER precedent on personal conscience advocacy
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
temporalscope: From the point of Engineer B's discharge warning onward
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.310920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Civic Advocacy Whistleblower Non-Suppression Protection
type: CitizenAdvocacyWhistleblowerNon-SuppressionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's discharge threat attempted to suppress Engineer A's civic advocacy; the Code's non-suppression provisions constrain such employer conduct.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer B and XYZ Manufacturing Company
constraintclass: Citizen Advocacy Whistleblower Non-Suppression Constraint
constraintstatement: No provision of the NSPE Code — including the faithful agent obligation or the employer concurrence requirement for citizen advocacy — could be construed to prohibit or suppress Engineer A's civic advocacy for public welfare product quality standards, particularly where no employer identification was made.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — whistleblower protection provisions; civic service obligation (Section 2(b))
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities and following the discharge threat
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305719
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Civic Duty Elevation Professional Duty Citizens Committee Legislative Testimony
type: CivicDutyProfessionalEthicsElevationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A and Citizens Committee colleagues organized and participated in civic advocacy for minimum legislative product quality standards, which the ethics board found to be in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the code.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A and Citizens Committee engineer members
obligationclass: Civic Duty Professional Ethics Elevation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A and Citizens Committee colleagues were obligated to recognize that their civic advocacy activities — organizing citizen committees, making public statements, and testifying before legislative bodies — constituted an elevation of civic duty to professional ethical duty under Section 2(b) of the code, which mandates seeking opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs.
sourcetext: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
temporalscope: Throughout the Citizens Committee advocacy activities
textreferences: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.314126
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Duty
type: ProfessionalEthicsCivicDutyElevationPrincipleConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's civic advocacy for product quality standards was grounded in his professional engineering judgment about inadequate engineering effort, elevating his civic participation to a professional ethical activity.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.86
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Professional Ethics Civic Duty Elevation Principle Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's participation in the Citizens Committee and legislative testimony represented the elevation of civic duty to professional ethical conduct — the Code constrains engineers to treat public-spirited civic engagement as a professional obligation, not merely a personal option.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Section 2(b) (civic service obligation); BER articulation that professional ethics elevates civic duty to professional duty
sourcetext: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
textreferences: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305856
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Duty Recognition
type: CivicDutyProfessionalEthicsElevationRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's concern about inferior products attributable to inadequate engineering, and his subsequent civic advocacy for legislative minimum standards, reflects the professional elevation of civic duty recognized by the NSPE Code.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A and the engineering profession
obligationclass: Civic Duty Professional Ethics Elevation Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's participation in the Citizens Committee and legislative testimony represents the elevation of civic duty to professional ethical conduct — the NSPE Code elevates to a professional obligation what any public-spirited citizen would do voluntarily when specialized engineering knowledge identifies a systemic public welfare concern such as inferior commercial products.
sourcetext: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering, and that an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering, and that an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.297236
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Civic Duty Professional Ethics Elevation Citizens Committee Legislative Testimony
type: CivicDutyProfessionalEthicsElevationSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Civic Duty Professional Ethics Elevation Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that his Citizens Committee participation and legislative testimony represented the elevation of civic duty to a professional ethical obligation, understanding that the ethics code mandates constructive civic service as a professional duty.
casecontext: Engineer A's recognition that Citizens Committee civic advocacy was not merely permissible but professionally expected under the ethics code
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Organizing the Citizens Committee and testifying before legislative bodies on product quality standards, conduct the ethics board found to be 'in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code'
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.304277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Civic Duty Professional Ethics Elevation Self-Recognition
type: CivicDutyProfessionalEthicsElevationSelf-RecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Civic Duty Professional Ethics Elevation Self-Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that his participation in the Citizens Committee and legislative testimony represented the elevation of civic duty to professional ethical conduct — understanding that his engineering expertise gave him a professional obligation to advocate for product quality standards that went beyond mere civic volunteerism.
casecontext: Engineer A's leadership of the Citizens Committee reflected recognition that his professional engineering knowledge created an elevated civic obligation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Organizing and leading the Citizens Committee as a professional engineer, grounding advocacy in engineering expertise about the relationship between engineering effort and product quality
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering, and that an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency.
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering, and that an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.299712
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Competing Duties — Public Welfare vs. Employer Loyalty
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From the point of the employer's termination warning onward
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: XYZ Manufacturing Company
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:19.507796+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:19.507796+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company... became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer A's simultaneous obligations to public welfare (through civic advocacy) and to employer loyalty (as an employee of XYZ Manufacturing)
terminatedby: Not resolved in the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company... became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company
triggeringevent: Employer's threat of discharge creating direct tension between Engineer A's civic advocacy role and his employment obligations
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.302790
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Employer Loyalty Boundary in Civic Advocacy
type: EngineerCitizenAdvocacyEmployerLoyaltyBoundaryObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A conducted all Citizens Committee activities without mentioning XYZ Manufacturing or any specific company, thereby respecting the employer loyalty boundary while exercising his civic advocacy rights.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Engineer Citizen Advocacy Employer Loyalty Boundary Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to weigh his employer's legitimate business interests before engaging in Citizens Committee advocacy, but having done so — and having ensured he did not disclose confidential employer information or name specific companies — his civic advocacy did not violate the employer loyalty boundary.
sourcetext: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.310168
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Loss Acceptance Civic Advocacy Jeopardy Recognition
type: EmploymentLossAcceptanceforPublicWelfareAdvocacyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employment Loss Acceptance for Public Welfare Advocacy Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize and accept that continuing Citizens Committee civic advocacy in the face of Engineer B's discharge threat placed his employment in jeopardy, and to make that choice knowingly with awareness of the personal consequences.
casecontext: Engineer A's decision to continue Citizens Committee advocacy despite Engineer B's discharge threat at XYZ Manufacturing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Continuing Citizens Committee activities despite Engineer B's discharge threat, with the ethics board recognizing that 'they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers'
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
textreferences: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.303966
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Loss Acceptance for Product Welfare Advocacy
type: EmploymentLossAcceptanceforPublicWelfareAdvocacyCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employment Loss Acceptance for Public Welfare Advocacy Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize and accept that continuing his Citizens Committee activities in the face of Engineer B's discharge threat might result in actual loss of employment, and to make that choice knowingly as a matter of professional and civic obligation.
casecontext: Engineer A faced a credible discharge threat from his supervisor and was required to weigh and accept the employment consequences of continuing his advocacy
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Continuing Citizens Committee activities despite Engineer B's explicit discharge warning, accepting the personal employment risk as a consequence of principled public welfare advocacy
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
textreferences: Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.299543
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Employment Termination Threat
type: EmployerTerminationThreatforExternalCivicAdvocacyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's warning through the unresolved decision point in the case
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: XYZ Manufacturing Company
concept category: State
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:19.507796+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:19.507796+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
stateclass: Employer Termination Threat for External Civic Advocacy State
subject: Engineer A's employment relationship with XYZ Manufacturing Company under threat due to civic advocacy
terminatedby: Not resolved in the case facts
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
triggeringevent: Engineer B (supervisor) warning Engineer A that continued advocacy activities would result in discharge for putting the employer in an embarrassing position
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.308722
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom Citizens Committee
type: EngineerExtra-EmploymentCivicAdvocacyEmployerNon-InterferenceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A organized and led the Citizens Committee for Quality Products while employed at XYZ Manufacturing; Engineer B threatened discharge if Engineer A continued these activities.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: XYZ Manufacturing / Engineer B (as employer and supervisor)
obligationclass: Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Employer Non-Interference Obligation
obligationstatement: XYZ Manufacturing and Engineer B were obligated to recognize that Engineer A retained the right to engage in extra-employment civic advocacy through the Citizens Committee — including organizing, making public statements, writing to newspapers, and testifying before legislative bodies — without employer interference or threatened discharge, as Engineer A had not disclosed confidential employer information and had not violated any professional duty.
sourcetext: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
textreferences: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.306919
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Gains Committee Prominence
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Gains Committee Prominence (Event 2) → Employer Embarrassment Perceived (Event 3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305308
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation Escalation Calibration
type: GoodFaithSafetyConcernWithoutDemonstrableViolationEscalationBoundaryConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's concern was about a general trend toward inferior products due to inadequate engineering effort, without identification of specific safety violations or confirmed harms, requiring calibrated public expression.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.83
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation Escalation Boundary Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A held a sincere professional concern about inferior products but had no confirmed safety violation or specific regulatory breach to point to; he was therefore constrained to calibrate his public statements to reflect professional concern rather than confirmed violation, and to avoid overstating the certainty of safety harms.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity provisions; BER precedent on good faith safety concerns without demonstrable violation
sourcetext: Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company...became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products
temporalscope: Throughout all public statements, newspaper letters, and legislative testimony
textreferences: Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company...became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.311211
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Industry-Wide Advocacy Employer Non-Identification Concurrence Non-Requirement
type: Industry-WideCivicAdvocacyEmployerNon-IdentificationEmployerConcurrenceNon-RequirementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A organized and led the Citizens Committee for Quality Products, composed of engineers from multiple companies, advocating for minimum product quality legislation without identifying any specific employer or company.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Industry-Wide Civic Advocacy Employer Non-Identification Employer Concurrence Non-Requirement Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was not constrained by the employer concurrence requirement for citizen advocacy because his Citizens Committee activities were industry-wide and did not identify XYZ Manufacturing or any specific company, meaning the employer's significant business interests were not directly implicated.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — faithful agent provisions; BER Case 61-10 (distinguishing internal product dissent from external industry advocacy)
sourcetext: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's participation in the Citizens Committee for Quality Products
textreferences: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
textreferences: They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products.'
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.310781
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Legislative Testimony Fact-Grounded Opinion Requirement
type: Fact-GroundedOpinionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A made public statements and testified before legislative bodies about the trend toward inferior commercial products, requiring that such statements be grounded in professional engineering analysis rather than unsupported assertion.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to ground his public statements, newspaper letters, and legislative testimony on behalf of the Citizens Committee in honest, fact-based professional opinion, prohibiting exaggeration or unsupported claims about the trend toward inferior products.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and truthfulness provisions; Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
sourcetext: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
temporalscope: Throughout all Citizens Committee public advocacy activities
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering, and that an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Legislative Testimony NSPE Code Conformance
type: EngineerPublicTestimonyNSPECodeConformanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A testified before legislative bodies advocating for minimum product quality standards, triggering the heightened ethical obligations applicable to engineers in public policy testimony roles.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's appearances before legislative bodies in support of minimum product quality standards were constrained to conform to the NSPE Code of Ethics — requiring that testimony be factually supported, non-deceptive, and consistent with his professional obligations.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — public testimony provisions; Section 2 (public welfare paramount)
sourcetext: appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
temporalscope: During all legislative appearances on behalf of the Citizens Committee for Quality Products
textreferences: appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305580
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Legislative Testimony Objective Truthfulness
type: ObjectiveTruthfulPublicStatementIssuanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Objective Truthful Public Statement Issuance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to ground his public statements, newspaper letters, and legislative testimony in honest, objective, and truthful professional assessments of product quality trends, consistent with the NSPE Code obligation to issue public statements in an objective and truthful manner.
casecontext: Engineer A's public advocacy required truthful and objective communication consistent with professional ethics obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Grounding advocacy in professional engineering assessment that inferior products result from inadequate engineering effort, without making false or misleading claims about specific companies
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.299261
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Legislative Testimony Public Interest Grounding
type: Fact-BasedPublicPolicyStatementObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's advocacy was based on his professional engineering assessment that inferior products were attributable to inadequate engineering effort and that increased engineering effort could produce more durable and efficient products.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Fact-Based Public Policy Statement Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to ground his public statements, newspaper letters, and legislative testimony on behalf of the Citizens Committee in honest technical assessment of the trend toward inferior products, ensuring that his advocacy was based on established engineering facts and professional judgment rather than unsupported claims.
sourcetext: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering, and that an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency
temporalscope: Throughout all public statements, media communications, and legislative appearances on behalf of the Citizens Committee
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering, and that an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.304695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment
type: NSPECodePublicTestimonyConformanceSelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to self-assess whether his legislative testimony and public statements on behalf of the Citizens Committee conformed to NSPE Code obligations — including objectivity, truthfulness, and public interest service — recognizing that his public role as a leading spokesman carried heightened ethical responsibilities.
casecontext: Engineer A's legislative testimony required ongoing self-assessment of conformance with professional ethics code public statement obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Appearing before legislative bodies and making public statements in support of minimum product quality standards without naming specific companies
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.299390
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Public-Safety Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Recognition
type: Non-Public-SafetyWhistleblowingPersonalConscienceRightRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Non-Public-Safety Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize that his product quality advocacy — which relates to public welfare and product durability rather than immediate public safety danger — may fall within the category of personal conscience rights rather than mandatory safety reporting duties, and that exercising this right despite employer opposition is ethically permissible even if not compelled.
casecontext: Engineer A's advocacy concerned product quality and durability standards rather than immediate public safety danger, requiring calibration of the mandatory vs. permissible advocacy distinction
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Continuing Citizens Committee activities on product quality standards despite discharge threat, exercising personal conscience right in a public welfare (non-imminent-safety) context
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.311631
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Safety Product Quality Advocacy Personal Conscience Scope
type: Non-SafetyWhistleblowingBlanketMandatoryDutyNon-ImpositionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's concern about inferior products was a professional judgment about quality trends rather than a confirmed safety violation, placing his advocacy in the personal conscience/civic service category rather than the mandatory safety escalation category.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.84
constrainedentity: Professional ethics bodies and Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Safety Whistleblowing Blanket Mandatory Duty Non-Imposition Constraint
constraintstatement: Because Engineer A's product quality advocacy did not involve a confirmed endangerment of public health and safety (no specific safety violation was demonstrated), the ethics body was constrained from imposing a blanket mandatory duty to continue advocacy — Engineer A's continued advocacy was a matter of personal conscience elevated to professional duty by the Code's civic service provisions, not a categorically mandatory obligation.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — Section 2 (public welfare paramount); BER precedent distinguishing mandatory safety escalation from personal conscience advocacy
sourcetext: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering
temporalscope: Throughout the ethics analysis of Engineer A's conduct
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering
textreferences: in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.306156
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Probation-Threat Employment Pressure Non-Subordination
type: Probation-ThreatEmploymentPressureNon-SubordinationofProfessionalPositionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Probation-Threat Employment Pressure Non-Subordination of Professional Position Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to recognize that Engineer B's discharge threat did not constitute an ethical justification for abandoning his professionally grounded civic advocacy position, and to maintain that position despite the credible employment threat.
casecontext: Engineer A faced a direct discharge threat and was required to assess whether that threat justified abandoning his advocacy activities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Continuing Citizens Committee activities in the face of Engineer B's explicit discharge warning, refusing to subordinate his professional civic advocacy position to employment pressure
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.312334
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Product Quality Advocacy Activity
type: ExternalCivicAdvocacyWithoutEmployerIdentificationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A joining the Citizens Committee through the period of public statements, newspaper letters, and legislative appearances
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B (supervisor)
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: Legislative bodies
affectedparties: XYZ Manufacturing Company
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:19.507796+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:19.507796+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
stateclass: External Civic Advocacy Without Employer Identification State
subject: Engineer A's participation in Citizens Committee for Quality Products
terminatedby: Not terminated in the case facts; ongoing at time of employer warning
textreferences: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
textreferences: They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products.' Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
triggeringevent: Engineer A joining the Citizens Committee for Quality Products and becoming its leading spokesman
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.308552
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Product Quality Engineering Deficiency Public Communication
type: ProductQualityEngineeringDeficiencyPublicCommunicationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Product Quality Engineering Deficiency Public Communication Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to communicate his professional engineering assessment of the product quality trend to public audiences, newspapers, and legislative bodies in an objective and truthful manner, grounding his advocacy in engineering expertise without naming specific employers or companies.
casecontext: Engineer A served as leading spokesman for the Citizens Committee, communicating engineering-based product quality concerns to multiple public audiences
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Public statements, letters to local newspapers, and legislative testimony on behalf of the Citizens Committee for Quality Products
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products.
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products.
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering, and that an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.298152
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Product Quality Legislative Advocacy Permissibility
type: ProductQualityStandardsLegislativeAdvocacyPublicWelfarePermissibilityObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A, employed at XYZ Manufacturing, identified a trend toward inferior commercial products attributable to inadequate engineering and formed a Citizens Committee with other engineers to advocate for legislative minimum standards.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocacy Public Welfare Permissibility Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was ethically permitted — and acting consistently with his professional public welfare obligations — to organize and lead the Citizens Committee for Quality Products, make public statements, write to newspapers, and testify before legislative bodies in support of minimum product quality standards, grounded in his honest engineering assessment of a systemic trend toward inferior products.
sourcetext: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer A's participation in the Citizens Committee and legislative advocacy activities
textreferences: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
textreferences: They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products.' Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.309764
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Product Quality Public Safety Concern
type: GoodFaithSafetyConcernWithoutDemonstrableViolationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's initial recognition of the trend through the duration of his advocacy activities
affectedparties: Consumer product purchasers
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: General public
affectedparties: XYZ Manufacturing Company
concept category: State
confidence: 0.8
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:19.507796+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:19.507796+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A... became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products for sale to the public
stateclass: Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation State
subject: Engineer A's professional concern about the trend toward inferior commercial products and its implications for public welfare
terminatedby: Not terminated in the case facts
textreferences: Engineer A... became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products for sale to the public
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering, and that an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency
triggeringevent: Engineer A's professional observation of a trend toward 'cheap,' inferior products due to inadequate engineering
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.309050
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocacy Permissibility Self-Assessment
type: ProductQualityStandardsLegislativeAdvocacyPermissibilitySelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocacy Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that his organization of and participation in the Citizens Committee for Quality Products, including legislative testimony for minimum product quality standards, was ethically permissible conduct consistent with his public welfare obligations as a licensed professional engineer.
casecontext: Engineer A assessed and acted on the permissibility of civic advocacy for product quality standards while employed by XYZ Manufacturing Company
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Co-founding the Citizens Committee, making public statements, writing newspaper letters, and appearing before legislative bodies without naming his employer or any specific company
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way. They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products.'
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products.
textreferences: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way. They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products.'
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.297855
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
type: ProductQualityStandardsLegislativeAdvocateEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'employment_status': 'Employed by XYZ Manufacturing Company', 'advocacy_role': 'Leading spokesman for Citizens Committee for Quality Products', 'advocacy_channels': ['Public statements', 'Letters to local newspapers', 'Legislative testimony'], 'employer_identification': 'None — did not name employer or specific companies'}
caseinvolvement: Employed engineer at XYZ Manufacturing who co-founded and led the Citizens Committee for Quality Products, making public statements, writing to newspapers, and testifying before legislative bodies in support of minimum commercial product quality standards, without naming his employer or any specific company.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:07.328126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:07.328126+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'XYZ Manufacturing Company'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_colleague', 'target': 'Citizens Committee Engineer Members'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor'}
rolecategory: public_responsibility
roleclass: Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause
textreferences: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers...who feel the same way
textreferences: Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company
textreferences: public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.309198
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Profession Public Welfare Mandate Code Provision Grounding Citizens Committee
type: ProfessionPublicWelfareMandateCodeProvisionGroundingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Profession Public Welfare Mandate Code Provision Grounding Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A demonstrated the capability to ground his Citizens Committee civic advocacy in the foundational professional obligation to devote interests to public welfare, recognizing that Section 2(b)'s mandate to seek constructive civic service opportunities supported and validated his legislative advocacy activities.
casecontext: Engineer A's civic advocacy activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee for Quality Products
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Organizing and leading the Citizens Committee for Quality Products and testifying before legislative bodies, conduct the ethics board found to be 'in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code'
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: He shall seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of his community.
textreferences: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.303695
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Ethics Civic Duty Elevation Principle Recognition
type: ProfessionalEthicsCivicDutyElevationPrincipleRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Professional Ethics Civic Duty Elevation Principle Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to recognize and articulate that professional ethics codes serve to elevate to a mandatory professional duty the conduct that all public-spirited citizens would engage in voluntarily — applying this principle to assess whether his Citizens Committee advocacy was a permissible option or a professionally expected obligation.
casecontext: Engineer A's leadership role required application of the civic-duty-elevation principle to assess the professional status of his advocacy activities
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Leading the Citizens Committee as a professional engineer, grounding advocacy in engineering expertise and treating civic participation as consistent with professional obligations
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products.
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products.
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.312470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy
type: WhistleblowerEmploymentJeopardyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's formal warning through the unresolved case endpoint
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: XYZ Manufacturing Company
concept category: State
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:19.507796+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:19.507796+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
stateclass: Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy State
subject: Engineer A's personal employment security in the context of his public interest advocacy activities
terminatedby: Not resolved in the case facts
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
triggeringevent: Supervisor's explicit warning that continued advocacy will result in discharge
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.308892
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty Discrimination
type: WhistleblowingRightvsMandatoryDutyDiscriminationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty Discrimination Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A needed the capability to correctly assess whether his Citizens Committee advocacy constituted a mandatory professional duty or a permissible exercise of personal conscience — recognizing that product quality legislative advocacy, while consistent with public welfare obligations, may represent an ethical right rather than a mandatory duty, and that exercising this right at personal cost (potential discharge) is professionally permissible.
casecontext: Engineer A's situation required discrimination between mandatory professional duties and permissible civic advocacy rights when facing employment consequences
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Continuing advocacy activities in the face of discharge threats, exercising the right to advocate for public welfare even at personal employment cost
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.311482
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A joining the Citizens Committee and becoming a leading spokesman before Engineer B's threat of discharge
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.315161
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A — Employment Jeopardy from Civic Advocacy Continuation
type: WhistleblowerEmploymentJeopardyState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's threat through the ethics board ruling
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Shared employer
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:35:38.472109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:35:38.472109+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
stateclass: Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy State
subject: Engineer A's recognition that continuing Citizens Committee activities may result in discharge, with the ethics board affirming this as a personal conscience decision the Code permits but cannot protect against employer retaliation
terminatedby: Ethics board ruling affirming Engineer A's entitlement to continue but acknowledging the Code cannot protect against employer retaliation
textreferences: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
triggeringevent: Engineer B's threat of discharge if Engineer A continued Citizens Committee activities
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.300483
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A's Advocacy Validated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A's Employment Threatened
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305175
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A's advocacy activities overlaps Engineer A's employment at XYZ Manufacturing
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.315282
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A's concern about inferior products before Engineer A joining the Citizens Committee
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.315191
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer A's public advocacy (letters, legislative appearances) before Engineer B's warning
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.315222
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B Civic Advocacy Suppression Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification
type: EmployerEmbarrassmentNon-JustificationforCivicAdvocacySuppressionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B's sole stated justification for the discharge threat was protecting XYZ Manufacturing's interests from the Citizens Committee's public advocacy activities.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (engineering supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing)
obligationclass: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Civic Advocacy Suppression Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to recognize that XYZ Manufacturing's commercial embarrassment or reputational sensitivity caused by Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities did not constitute a legitimate basis for threatening discharge, as Engineer A had not disclosed confidential information, had not named specific companies, and had not violated any professional duty.
sourcetext: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
temporalscope: At the time of the discharge threat
textreferences: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
textreferences: Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.306766
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor
type: Discharge-ThreateningEngineeringSupervisor
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'authority': 'Direct supervisor of Engineer A', 'action_taken': 'Issued termination warning', 'stated_rationale': 'Engineer A was putting employer in embarrassing position'}
caseinvolvement: Supervisor of Engineer A at XYZ Manufacturing who warned Engineer A that continued public advocacy activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee would result in discharge, citing embarrassment to the employer, despite Engineer A not having named the employer or any specific company.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:07.328126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:07.328126+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'represents_interests_of', 'target': 'XYZ Manufacturing Company'}
relationships: {'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Discharge-Threatening Engineering Supervisor
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
textreferences: because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.309360
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B Discharge Threat Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification
type: EmployerEmbarrassmentNon-JustificationforCivicAdvocacySuppressionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B warned Engineer A of discharge for Citizens Committee activities that embarrassed the employer, even though no employer identification had been made in any advocacy materials or testimony.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer B (supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing Company)
constraintclass: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Civic Advocacy Suppression Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from threatening Engineer A with discharge on the sole ground of employer embarrassment, given that Engineer A had not identified XYZ Manufacturing or any specific company in his Citizens Committee activities.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — civic service and public welfare provisions; BER Case 61-10 distinction between internal product dissent and external industry advocacy
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B issued the discharge warning and throughout the period of Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.310634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B Employer Embarrassment Discharge Threat Non-Justification
type: EmployerEmbarrassmentNon-JustificationforCivicAdvocacySuppressionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B warned Engineer A of discharge for continuing Citizens Committee activities, citing only employer embarrassment as justification, despite Engineer A having made no reference to XYZ Manufacturing or any specific company.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:39:58.179686+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing)
obligationclass: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Civic Advocacy Suppression Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from threatening Engineer A with discharge on the sole ground that Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities were putting the employer in an embarrassing position, given that Engineer A had not disclosed confidential employer information, had not named specific companies, and had not committed any professional misconduct.
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B issued the discharge warning to Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.309895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification Discharge Threat Failure
type: EmployerEmbarrassmentNon-JustificationforAdvocacySuppressionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Advocacy Suppression Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B failed to exercise the capability to recognize that XYZ Manufacturing's commercial embarrassment or reputational sensitivity caused by Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities did not constitute a legitimate ethical justification for threatening Engineer A with discharge.
casecontext: Engineer B's discharge threat against Engineer A for Citizens Committee activities at XYZ Manufacturing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Threatening Engineer A with discharge based on the employer's commercial and reputational interests, conduct the ethics board found to be in conflict with the code's public welfare provisions
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
textreferences: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
textreferences: Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code because by his threat he intends to preclude other engineers from carrying out what they believe to be motives consonant with the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.304142
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Advocacy Suppression Recognition
type: EmployerEmbarrassmentNon-JustificationforAdvocacySuppressionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Advocacy Suppression Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that XYZ Manufacturing's commercial embarrassment from Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities — where Engineer A had not named the employer or any specific company — did not constitute a legitimate ethical justification for threatening Engineer A with discharge.
casecontext: Engineer B threatened discharge based solely on employer embarrassment, demonstrating absence of the capability to recognize that embarrassment alone does not justify advocacy suppression
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's failure to recognize the illegitimacy of embarrassment-based discharge threats, as evidenced by his warning to Engineer A
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.311920
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B Engineer Civic Advocacy Employer Non-Interference Recognition
type: EngineerCivicAdvocacyEmployerLoyaltyBoundarySelf-AssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Engineer Civic Advocacy Employer Loyalty Boundary Self-Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B needed but failed to exercise the capability to recognize that Engineer A's civic advocacy — which did not name the employer or any specific company — fell within the permissible scope of extra-employment civic activity that employers are obligated to respect, and that the employer loyalty boundary had not been crossed.
casecontext: Engineer B's supervisory role required assessment of whether Engineer A's advocacy crossed the employer loyalty boundary, a capability he failed to apply correctly
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's failure to distinguish between advocacy that genuinely harms employer interests and advocacy that merely causes commercial embarrassment, resulting in an improper discharge threat
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.312052
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B Ethics Code Binding Supervisor Non-Exemption Public Welfare Provisions
type: EthicsCodeOrganizational-FormNon-ExcuseIndividualEngineerComplianceObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B, acting as engineering supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing, threatened Engineer A with discharge; the ethics board found that the same code provisions binding on Engineer A were equally binding on Engineer B.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (engineering supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing)
obligationclass: Ethics Code Organizational-Form Non-Excuse Individual Engineer Compliance Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to comply with the same ethics code provisions binding on all individual engineers — including the public welfare provisions of Sections 2, 2(a), and 2(b) — and could not claim exemption from those provisions by virtue of acting in a supervisory capacity or on behalf of the employer organization.
sourcetext: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B issued the discharge threat
textreferences: Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code
textreferences: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.314312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B Good Intent Non-Excuse — Code Violation Through Civic Advocacy Suppression
type: SupervisorPublicWelfareCodeSubordinationThroughDischargeThreatProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethics board found that Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, was in conflict with the Code because his threat intended to preclude Engineer A from carrying out what Engineer A believed to be motives consonant with the Code.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Supervisor Public Welfare Code Subordination Through Discharge Threat Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B's intent to act in the best interests of his employer did not excuse his Code violation — he was constrained from using his supervisory position to preclude Engineer A from carrying out activities consonant with the Code's public welfare mandate, regardless of his protective intent toward the employer.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Discussion; NSPE Code Section 2, 2(a), 2(b)
sourcetext: Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code because by his threat he intends to preclude other engineers from carrying out what they believe to be motives consonant with the Code.
temporalscope: At the time of Engineer B's discharge threat directed at Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code because by his threat he intends to preclude other engineers from carrying out what they believe to be motives consonant with the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.301801
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B Independent Code Violation Through Civic Advocacy Suppression
type: SupervisorEngineerCodeViolationThroughSubordinateCivicAdvocacySuppressionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B issued a discharge threat to Engineer A for Citizens Committee activities, acting in his capacity as a licensed professional engineer and supervisor, thereby independently violating the Code's provisions on civic service and public welfare.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer B (supervisor)
constraintclass: Supervisor Engineer Code Violation Through Subordinate Civic Advocacy Suppression Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B, as a licensed professional engineer in a supervisory role, independently violated the NSPE Code of Ethics by using supervisory authority to suppress Engineer A's civic advocacy for public welfare standards, and was constrained from doing so regardless of XYZ Manufacturing Company's business interests.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — individual applicability; NSPE Board of Directors directive (January 1971) on business-form non-influence; civic service and public welfare provisions
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
temporalscope: At the time of and following the discharge warning issued to Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.311051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B Supervisor Code-Binding Non-Exemption Employer-Protective Intent Failure
type: SupervisorCode-BindingNon-ExemptionforEmployer-ProtectiveConductRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Supervisor Code-Binding Non-Exemption for Employer-Protective Conduct Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B lacked or failed to exercise the capability to recognize that his employer-protective intent did not exempt him from the same ethics code provisions binding all engineers, resulting in his threatening Engineer A with discharge in violation of the code's public welfare provisions.
casecontext: Engineer B's discharge threat against Engineer A for Citizens Committee civic advocacy activities at XYZ Manufacturing
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Threatening Engineer A with discharge for Citizens Committee activities while intending to act in the employer's interests — conduct the ethics board found to be in conflict with the code's public welfare requirements despite the employer-protective motivation
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
textreferences: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
textreferences: Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code because by his threat he intends to preclude other engineers from carrying out what they believe to be motives consonant with the Code.
textreferences: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.303494
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B Supervisor Employer-Protective Intent Non-Excuse Code Violation
type: SupervisorEmployer-ProtectiveIntentNon-ExcuseforPublicWelfareCodeSubordinationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B warned Engineer A that continued Citizens Committee public advocacy activities would result in discharge, citing XYZ Manufacturing's commercial and reputational interests.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B (engineering supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing)
obligationclass: Supervisor Employer-Protective Intent Non-Excuse for Public Welfare Code Subordination Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from threatening Engineer A with discharge for continuing Citizens Committee activities, and his intent to act in the employer's best interests did not excuse his personal violation of the ethics code's public welfare provisions.
sourcetext: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B issued the discharge threat
textreferences: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
textreferences: Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code because by his threat he intends to preclude other engineers from carrying out what they believe to be motives consonant with the Code.
textreferences: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.313861
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B — Code Individual Applicability Non-Exemption for Supervisory Role
type: Business-FormNon-InfluenceonIndividualEthicsCodeConformanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethics board explicitly stated that the same principles and Code provisions binding on Engineer A were also binding on Engineer B as the engineering supervisor, establishing that supervisory role does not create a Code exemption.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.91
constrainedentity: Engineer B (supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing)
constraintclass: Business-Form Non-Influence on Individual Ethics Code Conformance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained by the same Code provisions binding all individual engineers — including the public welfare and civic service provisions — regardless of his supervisory role or his intent to act in the employer's organizational interest, establishing that supervisory authority does not exempt an individual engineer from Code compliance.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Discussion; NSPE Code individual applicability principle; Section 2, 2(a), 2(b)
sourcetext: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer B's supervisory conduct toward Engineer A
textreferences: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.314879
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B — Supervisor Code Violation by Threatening Subordinate's Civic Advocacy
type: SupervisorCodeViolationbyPrecludingSubordinatePublicWelfareActivityState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer B's issuance of the discharge threat through the ethics board's ruling
affectedparties: Citizens Committee
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Shared employer
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:35:38.472109+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:35:38.472109+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
stateclass: Supervisor Code Violation by Precluding Subordinate Public Welfare Activity State
subject: Engineer B's supervisory conduct in threatening Engineer A with discharge for Citizens Committee activities
terminatedby: Ethics board ruling finding Engineer B in conflict with the Code
textreferences: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
textreferences: Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code because by his threat he intends to preclude other engineers from carrying out what they believe to be motives consonant with the Code.
textreferences: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
triggeringevent: Engineer B threatening Engineer A with possible discharge if he continued Citizens Committee activities
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.300193
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B — Supervisor Public Welfare Code Subordination Through Discharge Threat
type: SupervisorPublicWelfareCodeSubordinationThroughDischargeThreatProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B, as Engineer A's supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing, threatened Engineer A with possible discharge if he continued his Citizens Committee activities. The ethics board found this placed Engineer B in conflict with the Code's public welfare provisions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B (supervisory engineer at XYZ Manufacturing)
constraintclass: Supervisor Public Welfare Code Subordination Through Discharge Threat Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained from threatening Engineer A with discharge for continuing Citizens Committee activities, as such a threat — even if intended to protect employer interests — subordinated the public welfare requirements of the Code and placed Engineer B in conflict with the Code's cited sections.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2, Section 2(a), Section 2(b); NSPE BER Discussion
sourcetext: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
temporalscope: At the time Engineer B threatened Engineer A with discharge
textreferences: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
textreferences: Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code because by his threat he intends to preclude other engineers from carrying out what they believe to be motives consonant with the Code.
textreferences: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.301182
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B's Code Violation Established
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305209
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer B's threat before Discussion/ethical analysis of the case
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.315253
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom Invoked for Citizens Committee
type: EngineerExtra-EmploymentCivicAdvocacyFreedomPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Citizens Committee for Quality Products formation and activities
appliedto: Public and legislative advocacy for minimum product quality standards
balancingwith: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Suppression of Legitimate Public Advocacy
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A and Citizens Committee colleagues exercised their right to organize a citizen committee, make public statements, write to newspapers, and advocate before legislative bodies on product quality standards outside their employment relationship, without identifying their employers or their employers' specific products
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Engineers retain civic advocacy rights outside employment so long as they do not exploit confidential employer information, do not represent the employer without authorization, and do not create direct conflict with specific employment duties — the Citizens Committee activities satisfied all these conditions
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Colleagues
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom Principle
sourcetext: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
tensionresolution: Civic advocacy freedom was found to prevail over employer commercial embarrassment concerns; the absence of employer identification or confidential information use was key
textreferences: In this case, we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product.
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.313137
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom Invoked for Engineer A's Citizens Committee Activities
type: EngineerExtra-EmploymentCivicAdvocacyFreedomPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Citizens Committee for Quality Products
appliedto: Legislative testimony
appliedto: Newspaper letters
appliedto: Public statements
balancingwith: Confidentiality
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's formation of and leadership in the Citizens Committee for Quality Products — involving public statements, newspaper letters, and legislative testimony — constitutes lawful extra-employment civic advocacy that falls within the retained civic sphere of the employed engineer, given that no employer identification, confidential information disclosure, or direct employment conflict is present.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle establishes that Engineer A's advocacy activities are not a violation of his employment obligations because the three key conditions are satisfied: no employer named, no confidential information disclosed, no direct conflict with specific employment duties. The employer's mere discomfort with the advocacy's general subject matter does not transform it into a prohibited activity.
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Colleagues
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products... even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company.
tensionresolution: The civic advocacy freedom principle supports Engineer A's right to continue all Citizens Committee activities; the absence of the three disqualifying conditions means no genuine employment obligation is violated.
textreferences: Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
textreferences: They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products.' Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.298647
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer Pressure Resistance Invoked Against Engineer B's Discharge Threat
type: EngineerPressureResistanceandEthicalNon-SubordinationtoOrganizationalDemands
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's discharge threat
appliedto: XYZ Manufacturing Company's commercial reputational interest
balancingwith: Employment Loss Acceptance as Cost of Public Safety Whistleblowing
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's threat of discharge if Engineer A continues his Citizens Committee activities constitutes organizational pressure designed to subordinate Engineer A's professional and civic obligations to the employer's commercial self-interest. The principle requires Engineer A to resist this pressure.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The discharge threat is an organizational demand that Engineer A abandon activities consistent with his professional ethics obligations. The principle establishes that such threats, however real the employment risk, do not constitute ethical justification for abandoning the advocacy — the pressure itself is the ethical violation, not Engineer A's response to it.
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position.
tensionresolution: The pressure resistance principle supports Engineer A's continued advocacy; the employment loss risk is a foreseeable cost of ethical conduct, not a reason to abandon it.
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.313447
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineer Professional Autonomy Preservation Invoked for Engineer A's Advocacy Independence
type: EngineerProfessionalAutonomyandIndependencePreservationPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Citizens Committee for Quality Products activities
appliedto: Engineer B's discharge threat
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's capacity to exercise independent professional judgment — including judgment about systemic product quality deficiencies and appropriate legislative remedies — must be preserved against employer pressure that would systematically suppress engineers' ability to act on their professional assessments in the public interest.
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional autonomy here encompasses not only independence in specific engineering decisions but also the broader independence to act on professional assessments through civic and legislative channels. An ethics code interpretation that permitted employers to suppress such advocacy through discharge threats would systematically undermine the independence that defines the profession.
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
sourcetext: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause... Engineer B warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged.
tensionresolution: Professional autonomy supports Engineer A's right to continue advocacy; the employment relationship does not create authority to suppress independent professional judgment exercised in the public interest.
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.298304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Invoked in XYZ Manufacturing Context
type: EngineeringBusiness-ProfessionDualityIntegrityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's professional public welfare obligations
appliedto: XYZ Manufacturing's commercial reputational interest
balancingwith: Loyalty
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: XYZ Manufacturing's attempt to use the employment relationship to suppress Engineer A's public advocacy illustrates the tension between engineering as a business pursuit (where employer commercial interests dominate) and engineering as a profession (where public welfare obligations are paramount). The principle requires Engineer A to navigate both dimensions while maintaining professional integrity.
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The principle establishes that the business dimension of engineering does not override the professional dimension; XYZ Manufacturing's commercial interest in avoiding embarrassment is a legitimate business concern but cannot be used to suppress Engineer A's professional obligations in the public welfare domain.
invokedby: Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor
invokedby: XYZ Manufacturing Company Employer
principleclass: Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Principle
sourcetext: Engineer B warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position.
tensionresolution: The duality principle supports Engineer A's continued advocacy; the professional dimension of engineering — with its public welfare mandate — takes precedence over the employer's commercial embarrassment concern.
textreferences: Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company, which produces and sells a variety of commercial home-use products
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.299128
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Ethics Board Case 61-10 Factual Distinction Citizens Committee Systemic Advocacy
type: SystemicIndustry-WideAdvocacyvsParticularCompanyProductDisputeFactualDistinctionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Systemic Industry-Wide Advocacy vs Particular Company Product Dispute Factual Distinction Capability
capabilitystatement: The ethics board demonstrated the capability to distinguish the Citizens Committee's industry-wide legislative advocacy from the Case 61-10 scenario of engineers questioning a particular company's business decision about a specific product, correctly determining that these are ethically non-equivalent situations governed by different code provisions.
casecontext: BER analysis distinguishing Citizens Committee industry-wide advocacy from Case 61-10 internal company product dissent scenario
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.93
demonstratedthrough: Explicitly distinguishing the present case from Case 61-10 by noting 'we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product' and that the engineers 'are taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products'
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Ethics Board (BER)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10, in which it was found that engineers assigned to the design of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but have an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design, and may offer their personal opinions and comments to management.
textreferences: In this case, we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product.
textreferences: What Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.
textreferences: What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10, in which it was found that engineers assigned to the design of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but have an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design, and may offer their personal opinions and comments to management.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.303061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Ethics Board Case 61-10 Systemic Advocacy Internal Dispute Distinction
type: SystemicIndustry-WideAdvocacyInternalProductDisputeNon-EquivalenceRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethics board explicitly distinguished the present case from Case 61-10, noting that the Citizens Committee was not dealing with the product of a particular company but was engaged in a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: BER Ethics Board (evaluating body)
obligationclass: Systemic Industry-Wide Advocacy Internal Product Dispute Non-Equivalence Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The ethics board was obligated to distinguish the Citizens Committee's industry-wide legislative advocacy for minimum quality standards from Case 61-10's internal product quality dispute, recognizing that the ethical analysis applicable to an engineer questioning a specific company's business decision does not govern an engineer's participation in systemic public welfare advocacy for all products across all companies.
sourcetext: What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10, in which it was found that engineers assigned to the design of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but have an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design, and may offer their personal opinions and comments to management.
temporalscope: At the time of ethics case evaluation
textreferences: In this case, we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product.
textreferences: What Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.
textreferences: What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10, in which it was found that engineers assigned to the design of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but have an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design, and may offer their personal opinions and comments to management.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.307184
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Ethics Board Ethics Code Individual-Only Corporate Non-Rescue Recognition Citizens Committee
type: EthicsCodeIndividual-EngineerCorporateNon-RescueLimitationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Ethics Code Individual-Engineer Corporate Non-Rescue Limitation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The ethics board demonstrated the capability to recognize and communicate that the ethics code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies, meaning that if employers take punitive action against Citizens Committee engineers, the code cannot rescue those engineers from such retaliation.
casecontext: BER analysis of the practical limits of ethics code protection for engineers facing employer retaliation for civic advocacy
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Explicitly stating that 'the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies' while simultaneously finding Engineer B personally in conflict with the code for his threat
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Ethics Board (BER)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
textreferences: Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code because by his threat he intends to preclude other engineers from carrying out what they believe to be motives consonant with the Code.
textreferences: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.303351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Ethics Board Evaluating Engineer B
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305036
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Ethics Board Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Assessment Citizens Committee
type: GoodFaithSinceritySufficiencyCivicAdvocacyEvaluationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Evaluation Capability
capabilitystatement: The ethics board demonstrated the capability to evaluate the Citizens Committee engineers' advocacy on the basis of their sincerity and good faith belief in serving the public interest, without requiring proof that their opinions were objectively correct.
casecontext: BER evaluation of whether Citizens Committee engineers' legislative advocacy for product quality standards was ethically permissible
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Explicitly stating that 'whether or not the engineer-members of the Citizens Committee were justified in their opinions is not germane to this case' and that 'it is sufficient to assume that they were sincere in those opinions'
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Ethics Board (BER)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Whether or not the engineer-members of the Citizens Committee were justified in their opinions is not germane to this case.
textreferences: It is sufficient to assume that they were sincere in those opinions and believed they were serving the public interest in their activities.
textreferences: Whether or not the engineer-members of the Citizens Committee were justified in their opinions is not germane to this case.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.301936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Ethics Board Multi-Company Collective Civic Advocacy Coordination Permissibility Recognition
type: Multi-CompanyEngineerCollectiveCivicAdvocacyCoordinationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Multi-Company Engineer Collective Civic Advocacy Coordination Capability
capabilitystatement: The ethics board demonstrated the capability to recognize the ethical permissibility of engineers from multiple competing companies coordinating to form and operate the Citizens Committee for Quality Products to advocate for legislative minimum standards, finding this conduct consistent with the ethics code's public welfare mandate.
casecontext: BER evaluation of the Citizens Committee's cross-company collective civic advocacy for legislative product quality standards
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Evaluating and affirming the permissibility of the Citizens Committee — composed of engineers from multiple companies — collectively advocating before legislative bodies for minimum product quality standards
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Ethics Board (BER)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: What Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
textreferences: What Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.304541
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Ethics Board Public Welfare Paramountcy Code Provision Application Citizens Committee
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: The ethics board demonstrated the capability to recognize that the public welfare paramountcy provisions of the code (Section 2 and Section 2(a)) override the employer's commercial interests when an engineer engages in good-faith civic advocacy for public welfare, and to apply this paramountcy principle to find Engineer B's discharge threat in conflict with the code.
casecontext: BER analysis of the conflict between XYZ Manufacturing's commercial interests and the public welfare mandate of the ethics code
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Finding that Engineer B's discharge threat subordinated 'the public welfare requirements of the Code' and that the same code provisions binding all engineers applied to Engineer B as supervisor
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:45.315279+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Ethics Board (BER)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
textreferences: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
textreferences: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.304409
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Ethics Code Company Non-Applicability Invoked Regarding Employer Retaliation
type: EthicsCodeIndividual-PersonApplicabilityNon-WaivabilityThroughBusinessForm
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Limits of ethics code enforcement against corporate employers
appliedto: Potential employer retaliation against Citizens Committee engineers
balancingwith: Employment Loss Acceptance as Cost of Public Safety Whistleblowing
balancingwith: Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The ethics board acknowledged that if XYZ Manufacturing or other employers took punitive action against the Citizens Committee engineers, the code would provide no remedy against the companies because the code applies only to individual engineers — the engineers must accept this personal employment risk as a cost of fulfilling professional obligations
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The code's individual-person applicability means that corporate employers who retaliate against engineers for code-sanctioned activities are not themselves subject to code discipline — the engineers bear the personal employment risk, and the code's protection runs only to their professional standing as individual engineers
invokedby: Product Manufacturing Employer
invokedby: XYZ Manufacturing Company Employer
principleclass: Ethics Code Individual-Person Applicability Non-Waivability Through Business Form
sourcetext: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
tensionresolution: Engineers must accept personal employment risk; the code cannot protect them from corporate retaliation but does validate their professional conduct
textreferences: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.306630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Ethics Code Corporate Non-Rescue — XYZ Manufacturing Punitive Action Against Citizens Committee Engineers
type: EthicsCodeCorporateNon-RescueIndividualEngineerPunitiveActionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethics board explicitly noted that if punitive action were taken by employers of the Citizens Committee engineers, the Code would not rescue them — establishing the boundary of Code protection and the individual-only scope of Code applicability.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A and Citizens Committee engineer-members facing employer punitive action
constraintclass: Ethics Code Corporate Non-Rescue Individual Engineer Punitive Action Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A and Citizens Committee colleagues were constrained to recognize that the ethics code could not rescue them from punitive employment actions taken by their employers, because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Discussion; NSPE Code individual applicability principle
sourcetext: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
temporalscope: Throughout the period of Citizens Committee advocacy and potential employer retaliation
textreferences: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.301339
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Ethics Code Individual-Only Applicability Corporate Non-Rescue Recognition Citizens Committee
type: EthicsCodeIndividual-Engineer-OnlyApplicabilityCorporateNon-RescueRecognitionObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethics board explicitly noted that if XYZ Manufacturing or other employers took punitive action against the Citizens Committee engineers, the code would not rescue them because the code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: BER Ethics Board and Citizens Committee engineers
obligationclass: Ethics Code Individual-Engineer-Only Applicability Corporate Non-Rescue Recognition Obligation
obligationstatement: The ethics board was obligated to communicate, and Citizens Committee engineers were obligated to recognize, that the ethics code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies, meaning that if employers took punitive action against the engineers for their advocacy, the code could not rescue them from those consequences.
sourcetext: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
temporalscope: At the time of ethics case evaluation and throughout the advocacy activities
textreferences: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity, the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.313992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Applied to Engineer B's Supervisory Role
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's supervisory direction to Engineer A to cease Citizens Committee activities
appliedto: XYZ Manufacturing's commercial interest in suppressing public advocacy
balancingwith: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Suppression of Legitimate Public Advocacy
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's attempt to act as a faithful agent of XYZ Manufacturing by suppressing Engineer A's public advocacy was found to exceed the ethical limits of the faithful agent role — the faithful agent obligation does not extend to directing other engineers to violate their public welfare obligations under the code
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation to the employer is bounded by the ethics code — an engineer cannot fulfill the faithful agent role by directing other engineers to subordinate their public welfare obligations to employer commercial interests
invokedby: Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
tensionresolution: The faithful agent obligation was found to be bounded by the public welfare provisions of the code; Engineer B's supervisory direction exceeded those bounds
textreferences: By so doing, Engineer B may have intended to act in the interests of the employer of both, but at the same time he was subordinating the public welfare requirements of the Code.
textreferences: The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.297697
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

First-Amendment-Professional-Code-Constraint-Instance
type: FirstAmendmentProfessionalCodeConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.75
createdby: U.S. Constitutional law / Supreme Court jurisprudence
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: First Amendment Constitutional Protections — Engineer Public Speech and Advocacy
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: First Amendment Professional Code Constraint
sourcetext: public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
usedby: Engineer A as background legal protection for public advocacy activities
usedincontext: Provides constitutional legal context for Engineer A's right to make public statements, write letters to newspapers, and testify before legislative bodies on matters of public concern, constraining the ethical and legal basis for employer retaliation
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.302415
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity Sufficiency Invoked for Citizens Committee Evaluation
type: GoodFaithPublicWelfareSinceritySufficiencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Citizens Committee engineers' technical opinions on commercial product quality
appliedto: Ethics board evaluation of whether advocacy activities were code-sanctioned
balancingwith: Intellectual Honesty
balancingwith: Objectivity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The ethics board declined to adjudicate whether the Citizens Committee engineers' technical opinions about product quality were correct, finding it sufficient that they were sincere in their beliefs and acted in good faith to serve the public interest — the code's protection of their advocacy activities did not depend on the technical accuracy of their positions
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethics board's role is to evaluate professional conduct standards, not to adjudicate technical disputes — sincerity of public welfare motivation is the appropriate threshold for code protection of advocacy activities, not verified technical correctness
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity Sufficiency Principle
sourcetext: Whether or not the engineer-members of the Citizens Committee were justified in their opinions is not germane to this case.
tensionresolution: Good faith sincerity was found sufficient for code protection; technical merit of advocacy position was deemed irrelevant to the ethics analysis
textreferences: It is sufficient to assume that they were sincere in those opinions and believed they were serving the public interest in their activities.
textreferences: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
textreferences: Whether or not the engineer-members of the Citizens Committee were justified in their opinions is not germane to this case.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.297548
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Citizens Committee Evaluation
type: GoodFaithSinceritySufficiencyforCivicAdvocacyEvaluationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A and Citizens Committee colleagues organized public advocacy for minimum legislative product quality standards; the ethics board declined to assess whether their technical opinions were correct.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:51:00.705314+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: BER Ethics Board (evaluating body)
obligationclass: Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency for Civic Advocacy Evaluation Obligation
obligationstatement: The ethics board was obligated to evaluate the Citizens Committee engineers' advocacy on the basis of their sincerity and good faith belief in serving the public interest, without adjudicating the technical correctness of their opinions about product quality trends.
sourcetext: Whether or not the engineer-members of the Citizens Committee were justified in their opinions is not germane to this case.
temporalscope: At the time of ethics case evaluation
textreferences: It is sufficient to assume that they were sincere in those opinions and believed they were serving the public interest in their activities.
textreferences: Whether or not the engineer-members of the Citizens Committee were justified in their opinions is not germane to this case.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.313585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency — Citizens Committee Advocacy Evaluation
type: GoodFaithSinceritySufficiencyCivicAdvocacyCorrectnessNon-RequirementConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A and Citizens Committee colleagues advocated for minimum product quality legislation; the ethics board needed to determine whether their advocacy was ethically permissible without adjudicating the correctness of their product quality opinions.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Ethics Board evaluating Citizens Committee engineers' advocacy
constraintclass: Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Correctness Non-Requirement Constraint
constraintstatement: The ethics board was constrained to evaluate the Citizens Committee engineers' advocacy on the basis of their sincerity and good faith belief in serving the public interest, not on the substantive correctness of their opinions about product quality standards.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Discussion — Citizens Committee case; NSPE Code Section 2 and Section 2(b)
sourcetext: Whether or not the engineer-members of the Citizens Committee were justified in their opinions is not germane to this case.
temporalscope: At the time of ethics board evaluation of the case
textreferences: It is sufficient to assume that they were sincere in those opinions and believed they were serving the public interest in their activities.
textreferences: Whether or not the engineer-members of the Citizens Committee were justified in their opinions is not germane to this case.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.314604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Joining Citizens Committee Advocacy
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.304872
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Joining Citizens Committee Advocacy (Action 1) → Engineer A Gains Committee Prominence (Event 2)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Keeping Advocacy Statements General
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.304909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Keeping Advocacy Statements General (Action 2) + Continuing Advocacy Despite Threat (Action 4) → Engineer A's Advocacy Validated (Event 6)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.315130
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Loyalty Boundary Invoked in Engineer A vs. XYZ Manufacturing Tension
type: Loyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
appliedto: XYZ Manufacturing's reputational interest
balancingwith: Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Ethical Duty Principle
balancingwith: Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom Principle
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The loyalty obligation Engineer A owes to XYZ Manufacturing as his employer is invoked by Engineer B as a basis for suppressing the Citizens Committee advocacy. The principle's boundary — that loyalty operates only within the bounds of professional ethics and public welfare — determines whether Engineer B's demand is legitimate.
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Loyalty to an employer is a genuine professional obligation, but it does not require an engineer to abandon lawful, factually grounded public advocacy that does not name the employer or disclose confidential information. The loyalty obligation is not violated by Engineer A's conduct; rather, Engineer B's demand exceeds the legitimate scope of the loyalty obligation.
invokedby: Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor
invokedby: XYZ Manufacturing Company Employer
principleclass: Loyalty
sourcetext: Engineer B warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position, even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company.
tensionresolution: Loyalty does not extend to suppressing public welfare advocacy that creates no genuine conflict of interest; the employer's embarrassment is not a legitimate loyalty-based constraint on Engineer A's activities.
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.297051
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Minimum-Product-Quality-Legislative-Standard-Instance
type: MinimumProductQualityLegislativeStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.78
createdby: Legislative bodies (proposed by citizen advocacy group)
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Proposed Minimum Standards for Commercial Home-Use Products
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Minimum Product Quality Legislative Standard
sourcetext: appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency
textreferences: appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
usedby: Citizens Committee for Quality Products; Engineer A in legislative testimony
usedincontext: The specific legislative target of the Citizens Committee for Quality Products' advocacy, representing the regulatory mechanism through which Engineer A seeks to address inadequate engineering and inferior product quality
version: Proposed/Pending
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.302562
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

NSPE-Code-PublicWelfare-CitizenAction
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers — Provisions on Public Welfare and Citizen Action
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
usedby: Engineer A (as justification for advocacy); Engineer B (implicitly, as constraint on employer authority)
usedincontext: Provides the primary normative grounding for Engineer A's right and obligation to advocate publicly for product quality standards, and for assessing the ethical limits of Engineer B's threatened termination
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.307310
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.93
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 1: Integrity and Faithful Agency
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:52.529556+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:52.529556+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Section 1 – 'The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.'
textreferences: Section 1 – 'The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.'
usedby: BER in contextualizing the tension between employer loyalty and public welfare duties
usedincontext: Referenced as background context establishing the engineer's general duty of integrity and faithful agency to clients and employers, against which the civic advocacy obligations are balanced
version: Historical (pre-revision; section no longer exists in current form)
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.300907
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 2 and Section 2(a): Public Safety, Health, and Welfare
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:52.529556+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:52.529556+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: Section 2 – 'The Engineer will have proper regard for the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties.'
textreferences: Section 2(a) – 'He will regard his duty to the public welfare as paramount.'
usedby: BER in evaluating Engineer A's and Engineer B's conduct
usedincontext: Cited as the foundational mandate requiring engineers to regard public welfare as paramount and to point out consequences when engineering judgment is overruled by nontechnical authority
version: Historical (pre-revision; sections no longer exist in current form)
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.300624
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(b) (Civic Service Obligation)
type: EngineerCivicServiceObligationStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 2(b): Constructive Civic Service
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:52.529556+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:52.529556+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Civic Service Obligation Standard
sourcetext: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
textreferences: Section 2(b) – 'He shall seek opportunities to be of constructive service in civic affairs and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of his community.'
textreferences: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
usedby: BER in affirming Engineer A's conduct and condemning Engineer B's threat
usedincontext: Cited as the specific provision authorizing and obligating engineers to seek opportunities for constructive civic service and community well-being advancement, directly justifying Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
version: Historical (pre-revision; section no longer exists in current form)
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.300780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Non-Safety Civic Advocacy — Personal Conscience vs. Mandatory Duty Boundary
type: Non-SafetyWhistleblowingBlanketMandatoryDutyNon-ImpositionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethics board affirmed the permissibility of Citizens Committee advocacy while recognizing that engineers may place their positions in jeopardy — implying the advocacy was ethically permissible but not categorically mandatory in the same way safety reporting is mandatory.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Ethics Board evaluating Citizens Committee engineers' advocacy obligations
constraintclass: Non-Safety Whistleblowing Blanket Mandatory Duty Non-Imposition Constraint
constraintstatement: The ethics board was constrained to recognize that Citizens Committee advocacy for product quality standards — absent a demonstrable public safety endangerment — was a matter of personal conscience elevated to professional duty by the Code's civic service provisions, not a mandatory whistleblowing obligation equivalent to safety-endangerment reporting.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE BER Discussion; NSPE Code Section 2(b); contrast with mandatory safety reporting provisions
sourcetext: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
temporalscope: At the time of ethics board evaluation of the case
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.315030
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Product Manufacturing Employer
type: CommercialProductManufacturingEngineeringEmployer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'sector': 'Private commercial product manufacturing', 'authority': 'Employment decisions including discharge', 'code_applicability': 'Code applies only to individual engineers, not companies'}
caseinvolvement: The private manufacturing employer(s) of the Citizens Committee engineers, whose commercial and reputational interests are cited by Engineer B as justification for threatening Engineer A's discharge, and who may take punitive action against engineers engaged in public advocacy activities.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:35:00.046269+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:35:00.046269+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Citizens Committee Engineer Colleagues'}
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate'}
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Commercial Product Manufacturing Engineering Employer
sourcetext: the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies
textreferences: If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity
textreferences: intending to act in the best interests of his employer
textreferences: the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.309634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Product Quality Decline Observed
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.305071
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Product Safety Legislative Advocacy Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
type: ProductSafetyMinimumStandardsLegislativeAdvocacyasEngineeringPublicWelfareObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Citizens Committee for Quality Products legislative advocacy
appliedto: Public statements and newspaper communications on product quality standards
balancingwith: Business Decision Boundary Between Management Authority and Engineering Ethics Jurisdiction
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A and Citizens Committee colleagues identified a systemic trend toward inferior commercial products attributable to insufficient engineering effort and advocated through public and legislative channels for minimum quality standards, treating this as a professional public welfare obligation rather than a personal political preference
confidence: 0.94
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The systemic nature of the product quality concern — affecting all commercial products rather than a specific employer's product — triggers the public welfare advocacy obligation rather than the internal management-deference principle of Case 61-10
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Colleagues
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Product Safety Minimum Standards Legislative Advocacy as Engineering Public Welfare Obligation
sourcetext: What Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.
tensionresolution: Systemic industry-wide public welfare advocacy was found to be code-sanctioned and distinct from internal employer product quality disputes
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
textreferences: What Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.312973
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Product Safety Minimum Standards Legislative Advocacy Obligation Invoked by Engineer A and Citizens Committee
type: ProductSafetyMinimumStandardsLegislativeAdvocacyasEngineeringPublicWelfareObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Citizens Committee for Quality Products
appliedto: Legislative advocacy for minimum product standards
appliedto: Public statements on product quality
balancingwith: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Suppression of Legitimate Public Advocacy
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's identification of a systemic trend toward inferior commercial products attributable to inadequate engineering effort, and his subsequent organization of the Citizens Committee to advocate for minimum legislative standards, represents the domain-specific application of the public welfare mandate to consumer product quality — an area where engineers' special competence creates a corresponding professional obligation to advocate.
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle establishes that Engineer A's advocacy is not merely personally motivated but professionally grounded: his engineering expertise enables him to identify the systemic quality deficiency and its engineering causes, and this expertise creates a professional obligation to use it in the public interest through appropriate legislative channels.
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Colleagues
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Product Safety Minimum Standards Legislative Advocacy as Engineering Public Welfare Obligation
sourcetext: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering, and that an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency.
tensionresolution: The domain-specific public welfare obligation supports and reinforces Engineer A's advocacy; the employer's commercial interest in avoiding embarrassment does not override a professionally grounded obligation to advocate for consumer product quality standards.
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering, and that an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency
textreferences: appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products for sale to the public
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.298810
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Product Welfare Advocacy Employment Jeopardy Acceptance — Engineer A Citizens Committee
type: ProductQualityPublicWelfareCivicAdvocacyEmploymentJeopardyAcceptanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethics board affirmed that Citizens Committee engineers were entitled to engage in their advocacy under the Code, while recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Product Quality Public Welfare Civic Advocacy Employment Jeopardy Acceptance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained to recognize and accept that continuing Citizens Committee activities in the face of Engineer B's discharge threat placed his own employment position in jeopardy, and that this jeopardy was a foreseeable and non-excusing consequence of ethics-consistent civic advocacy.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE BER Discussion; NSPE Code Section 2(b)
sourcetext: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
temporalscope: At the time of Engineer A's decision to continue Citizens Committee activities despite discharge threat
textreferences: This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code, recognizing that they may place their own position in jeopardy by going counter to the apparent interests of their employers.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.301479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Public-Safety-Standards-Hearing-Participation-Instance
type: PublicSafetyStandardsHearingParticipationFramework
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: Professional engineering ethics guidance
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework — Legislative Testimony by Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:03.410967+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework
sourcetext: appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
usedby: Engineer A in legislative testimony on commercial product standards
usedincontext: Provides procedural and normative framework for Engineer A's appearances before legislative bodies to advocate for minimum product quality standards, establishing the ethical conditions under which such participation is appropriate
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.307704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Invoked for Engineer A's Legislative Appearances
type: PublicInterestEngineeringTestimonyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Legislative testimony on minimum product standards
balancingwith: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Suppression of Legitimate Public Advocacy
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's appearance before legislative bodies to testify in support of minimum product quality standards draws on his specialized engineering knowledge of product design, durability, and manufacturing quality — making his testimony an expression of the professional obligation to provide technically grounded public testimony when it serves the public interest.
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The principle supports Engineer A's legislative appearances as professionally obligated rather than merely personally motivated; his engineering expertise makes his testimony uniquely valuable to legislators who lack the technical background to assess product quality claims independently.
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products.
tensionresolution: The public interest testimony obligation supports Engineer A's continued legislative appearances; the employer's embarrassment concern does not override the professional obligation to provide technically grounded public testimony.
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering
textreferences: appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.298976
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Citizens Committee Engineers
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Citizens Committee for Quality Products advocacy activities
appliedto: Legislative advocacy for minimum product quality standards
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A and fellow Citizens Committee engineers organized and advocated for legislative minimum quality standards for commercial products, treating this systemic public welfare concern as a professional obligation paramount to their individual employer interests
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare paramount extends beyond immediate project safety to encompass systemic advocacy for industry-wide product quality standards that protect the general public from inferior commercial products — the principle is not confined to site-specific or project-specific safety hazards
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Colleagues
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation was deemed to override employer commercial interests; engineers are entitled to engage in systemic public welfare advocacy even at personal employment risk
textreferences: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.312630
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Through Citizens Committee Advocacy
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Citizens Committee for Quality Products advocacy
appliedto: Legislative testimony on minimum product standards
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's concern about the systemic trend toward inferior commercial products and his advocacy for minimum legislative standards reflects the engineering profession's paramount obligation to protect the public — in this case consumers who lack the technical knowledge to assess product quality and durability themselves.
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:38:03.402187+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare here extends beyond immediate physical safety to encompass the quality, durability, and efficiency of products sold to the public — domains where inadequate engineering effort causes diffuse but real harm to consumers. The principle supports Engineer A's advocacy as professionally obligated rather than merely personally motivated.
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer A became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products for sale to the public... an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency.
tensionresolution: The public welfare obligation supports Engineer A's continued advocacy; the loyalty obligation is not violated because Engineer A did not name his employer or disclose confidential information, meaning no genuine conflict of interest exists — only employer embarrassment.
textreferences: He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering, and that an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency
textreferences: appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
textreferences: became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products for sale to the public
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.296564
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Mandate — Citizens Committee Civic Advocacy Permissibility
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethics board affirmed that what the Citizens Committee engineers were doing — assuming good faith — was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code, grounded in the foundational public welfare paramount principle.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A and Citizens Committee engineer-members
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A and Citizens Committee colleagues were constrained to ground their civic advocacy in the public welfare mandate of Section 2 and Section 2(a), which establishes that devotion to public welfare is basic to the entire concept of a profession.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:53:10.540393+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2 and Section 2(a); NSPE BER Discussion
sourcetext: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
temporalscope: Throughout Citizens Committee advocacy activities
textreferences: It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in Section 2 and Section 2(a) of the Code.
textreferences: What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.314459
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322696
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317316
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317407
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317438
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317469
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317499
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317527
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317556
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.322772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.319798
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317156
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Was Engineer A in violation of the Code of Ethics?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.319043
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: At what point, if any, would Engineer A's advocacy cross an ethical line — for example, if he began naming XYZ Manufacturing's products specifically, or if his factual claims about product quality were not grounded in verifiable engineering evidence?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.319584
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does the Code of Ethics impose any affirmative obligation on Engineer A to escalate his product quality concerns internally within XYZ Manufacturing before taking them to the public and legislative arena, or is external civic advocacy permissible as a first resort?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.319678
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: Because the Code of Ethics does not bind the employer company itself, what practical recourse — if any — does Engineer A have if Engineer B carries out the discharge threat, and does the Board's ruling create an enforceable protection or merely a moral condemnation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.319853
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Is the Citizens Committee's collective, multi-company advocacy structure ethically significant — does organizing across employer boundaries strengthen or complicate the engineers' professional obligations, and could coordinated industry-wide advocacy ever constitute a conflict of interest?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.319906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Was Engineer B in violation of the Code of Ethics?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.319096
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Obligation — requiring Engineer A to act in the interest of his employer within ethical limits — conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle when his civic advocacy, though general, predictably embarrasses XYZ Manufacturing and may harm its commercial interests?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.319958
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom conflict with the Product Safety Minimum Standards Legislative Advocacy Obligation — that is, if civic advocacy on product quality is merely a personal freedom rather than a mandatory professional duty, can it override the employer's legitimate interest in avoiding public embarrassment?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320008
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Ethical Duty principle — which treats Engineer A's legislative testimony as a mandatory professional obligation — conflict with the Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity Sufficiency principle, which evaluates advocacy only by the engineer's honest intent rather than by any demonstrable safety threshold?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320119
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Employment Loss Acceptance as Cost of Public Welfare Advocacy principle — which demands that Engineer A bear personal career risk for civic action — conflict with the Engineer Pressure Resistance principle when applied to Engineer B, given that Engineer B may himself face employer pressure to suppress Engineer A's advocacy and could face his own employment jeopardy for failing to do so?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill a categorical duty to advocate for public welfare by joining the Citizens Committee, regardless of the personal employment consequences that duty imposed on him?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320226
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B violate a categorical duty to refrain from suppressing a subordinate's civic advocacy, and does the fact that Engineer B may have been acting in good faith to protect the employer's interests excuse that violation under the Code?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320277
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's industry-wide advocacy through the Citizens Committee produce greater net public benefit than harm — weighing improved product quality standards against the chilling effect on engineer-employer relationships — and does that calculus justify the Board's validation of his conduct?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320065
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer B demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of a supervisor when he chose to protect the employer's reputational interests over supporting a subordinate's good-faith civic advocacy for public welfare?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320411
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: Would the Board's ethical analysis have changed if Engineer A had specifically named XYZ Manufacturing Company's products as examples of inferior quality during his Citizens Committee advocacy, rather than keeping his statements general and industry-wide?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320464
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: What if Engineer A had raised his product quality concerns exclusively through internal company channels rather than forming and publicly leading the Citizens Committee — would the Board have found him in violation of his duty as a faithful agent to XYZ Manufacturing, and would Engineer B's threat have been ethically justified?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320531
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: Would the outcome for Engineer B have differed if the NSPE Code of Ethics were interpreted as applying to organizations as well as individuals — could XYZ Manufacturing Company itself have been found in violation for directing Engineer B to issue the discharge threat?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320587
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: What if Engineer A had continued his Citizens Committee advocacy after being discharged by Engineer B — would the Board have viewed his post-termination advocacy differently, and would the absence of an employment relationship have altered the ethical obligations and protections applicable to his public statements?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.320721
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317613
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317909
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317940
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317969
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318019
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318053
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318082
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318112
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318140
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318208
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318241
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318312
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318342
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318371
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.318399
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317702
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317734
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T14:12:26.317852
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Supervisor Ethics Code Binding Non-Exemption Invoked Against Engineer B
type: SupervisorEthicsCodeBindingNon-ExemptionThroughEmployer-ProtectiveIntentPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B's discharge threat against Engineer A
appliedto: Engineer B's personal ethics code obligations as a licensed engineer
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
balancingwith: Loyalty
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B, as engineering supervisor, was found to be personally in violation of the ethics code by threatening Engineer A with discharge to prevent code-sanctioned public welfare activities — the good faith intent to protect the employer's interests did not exempt Engineer B from personal ethics code obligations
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The ethics code's obligations run to individual engineers in all their professional capacities, including supervisory roles — a supervisor who uses supervisory authority to prevent another engineer from fulfilling code-mandated obligations is personally in violation, regardless of the sincerity of employer-protective intent
invokedby: Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor
principleclass: Supervisor Ethics Code Binding Non-Exemption Through Employer-Protective Intent Principle
sourcetext: Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code because by his threat he intends to preclude other engineers from carrying out what they believe to be motives consonant with the Code.
tensionresolution: Engineer B's personal code obligations were found to override the employer-protective supervisory action; good intent toward employer did not cure the violation
textreferences: Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code because by his threat he intends to preclude other engineers from carrying out what they believe to be motives consonant with the Code.
textreferences: The same principles and Code provisions are binding on the engineering supervisor who threatened Engineer A with the possible discharge if he continued his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.306304
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Systemic Industry-Wide Advocacy Non-Equivalence Invoked to Distinguish Case 61-10
type: SystemicIndustry-WideAdvocacyNon-EquivalencetoInternalProductQualityDisputePrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Case 61-10 precedent distinguishing analysis
appliedto: Citizens Committee for Quality Products advocacy
balancingwith: Business Decision Boundary Between Management Authority and Engineering Ethics Jurisdiction
balancingwith: Loyal
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The ethics board distinguished the Citizens Committee's industry-wide legislative advocacy for minimum quality standards from Case 61-10's internal employer product quality dispute, finding that management deference applies only to the latter and that the former is affirmatively sanctioned by the public welfare provisions of the code
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:48:53.436764+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The critical distinction is whether the engineer's advocacy is directed at a specific employer's internal product decision (triggering Case 61-10 management deference) or at a systemic, industry-wide public welfare concern (triggering public welfare advocacy rights under Section 2 and 2(b))
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
principleclass: Systemic Industry-Wide Advocacy Non-Equivalence to Internal Product Quality Dispute Principle
sourcetext: In this case, we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product.
tensionresolution: Industry-wide systemic advocacy was found to fall outside the Case 61-10 management-deference principle and within the affirmative public welfare advocacy mandate
textreferences: In this case, we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product.
textreferences: What Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service designed to raise the quality of all products.
textreferences: What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10, in which it was found that engineers assigned to the design of a commercial product of lower quality should not question the company's business decision, but have an obligation to point out any safety hazards in the new design, and may offer their personal opinions and comments to management.
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.306456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Threatening Discharge for Advocacy
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.304944
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Threatening Discharge for Advocacy (Action 3) → Engineer A's Employment Threatened (Event 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.315066
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

Threatening Discharge for Advocacy (Action 3) → Engineer B's Code Violation Established (Event 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.315098
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

XYZ Manufacturing Company Code Individual Applicability Non-Organization
type: Business-FormNon-InfluenceonIndividualEthicsCodeConformanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The ethics analysis focused on the individual conduct of Engineer A (civic advocacy) and Engineer B (discharge threat), not on XYZ Manufacturing Company's corporate conduct, consistent with the Code's individual applicability.
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Engineer A and Engineer B individually
constraintclass: Business-Form Non-Influence on Individual Ethics Code Conformance Constraint
constraintstatement: The NSPE Code of Ethics applied to Engineer A and Engineer B as individual engineers, not to XYZ Manufacturing Company as a corporate entity; neither engineer could use the corporate employment relationship as a shield against individual ethical obligations.
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:42:09.686570+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: NSPE Code of Ethics — individual applicability; NSPE Board of Directors directive (January 1971)
sourcetext: Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company
temporalscope: Throughout the events described in the case
textreferences: Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.311348
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

XYZ Manufacturing Company Employer
type: CommercialProductManufacturingEngineeringEmployer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'product_type': 'Commercial home-use products (variety)', 'concern': "Reputational embarrassment from employee's public advocacy", 'named_in_advocacy': False}
caseinvolvement: The manufacturing employer of Engineer A whose commercial and reputational interests are asserted by Engineer B as grounds for threatening Engineer A's discharge over outside public advocacy activities.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:34:07.328126+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:34:07.328126+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate'}
relationships: {'type': 'represented_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor'}
rolecategory: employer_relationship
roleclass: Commercial Product Manufacturing Engineering Employer
sourcetext: XYZ Manufacturing Company, which produces and sells a variety of commercial home-use products
textreferences: XYZ Manufacturing Company, which produces and sells a variety of commercial home-use products
textreferences: he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.299851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction

XYZ Manufacturing Company Engineer Civic Advocacy Non-Interference
type: EmployerEmbarrassmentNon-JustificationforAdvocacySuppressionRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Advocacy Suppression Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: XYZ Manufacturing Company, as the engineering employer, needed the institutional capability to recognize that its commercial embarrassment from Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities did not justify suppressing that advocacy through discharge threats, particularly where Engineer A had not named the company or any specific products.
casecontext: XYZ Manufacturing's institutional response to Engineer A's advocacy required recognition that embarrassment-based suppression exceeds legitimate employer authority
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: The company's failure to restrain Engineer B's discharge threat, reflecting an institutional failure to recognize the limits of employer authority over engineer civic advocacy
discoveredincase: 82
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 82
generatedattime: 2026-03-02T13:46:07.113847+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: XYZ Manufacturing Company Employer
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
textreferences: Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
wasattributedto: Case 82 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-03-02T13:59:43.312179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 82 Extraction