NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 61-10: Engineer Assigned to Design of Lower-Quality Commercial Product
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.
BER to distinguish the present case from a prior ruling and clarify the scope of permissible engineer advocacy
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.
Case 61-10 Distinguishability — Industry-Wide Advocacy vs. Internal Product Dissent
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.
Ethics Board and parties applying BER Case 61-10 to Citizens Committee scenario
Industry-Wide Advocacy Internal Product Dissent BER Precedent Distinguishability Constraint
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.
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
At the time of ethics board analysis of the Citizens Committee case
In this case, we are not dealing with the product of a particular company or any particular product.
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.
Case 61-10 ruling before Discussion analysis of current case
CausalLink_Continuing Advocacy Despite Th
CausalLink_Ethics Board Evaluating Engine
CausalLink_Joining Citizens Committee Adv
CausalLink_Keeping Advocacy Statements Ge
CausalLink_Threatening Discharge for Advo
Citizens Committee Engineers Multi-Company Collective Civic Advocacy Coordination
Multi-Company Engineer Collective Civic Advocacy Coordination Capability
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.
Engineers from multiple companies coordinated civic advocacy for product quality standards, requiring assessment of the permissibility of cross-employer coordination
Formation of the Citizens Committee for Quality Products by engineers from multiple companies, coordinating public statements and legislative advocacy for minimum product quality standards
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.'
Citizens Committee Engineers Profession Public Welfare Mandate Code Grounding
Profession Public Welfare Mandate Code Provision Grounding Capability
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.
Citizens Committee engineers' collective civic advocacy for legislative product quality standards
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
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.
What was being done, assuming good faith, was in full accord with the mandate of Section 2(b) of the Code.
Citizens Committee Engineers — Civic Service Obligation Activation Under Section 2(b)
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.
Engineer A and Citizens Committee engineer-members
Professional Ethics Civic Duty Elevation Principle Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2(b); NSPE BER Discussion
Throughout Citizens Committee advocacy activities
Engineer A was not in violation of the Code of Ethics.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Engineer B was in violation of the Code of Ethics.
NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2 (Public Welfare Paramount)
NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 2(b) (Civic Service Obligation)
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics - Section 1 (Faithful Agent or Trustee)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Staff Engineer, XYZ Manufacturing Company
Code cannot protect Engineer A from employer punitive action since Code applies only to individual engineers, not companies
Potential to inspire or embolden other engineers in similar advocacy
Duty to have proper regard for public safety, health, and welfare (Code Section 2)
Duty to public welfare as paramount (Code Section 2a)
Duty to seek constructive civic service opportunities (Code Section 2b)
Integrity and adherence to highest professional standards (Code Section 1)
Civic engagement as a professional duty, not merely a personal choice
Professional integrity requires acting on sincere good-faith beliefs about public interest
Public welfare paramount over personal professional security
Fulfill Code-mandated public welfare obligations despite personal professional risk, continuing to advocate for industry-wide product quality standards
Potential practical tension with employer loyalty obligation (Code Section 1), though ethics board found advocacy did not constitute a substantive violation given its general, non-company-specific nature
Continued public communication and legislative advocacy skills
Judgment to maintain appropriate boundaries in public statements
Moral courage to act on professional obligations under coercive pressure
After receiving Engineer B's warning, as an anticipated future decision
Engineer A faced an implicit but critical decision point to either continue his Citizens Committee activities or cease them in response to Engineer B's discharge threat. The case structure and ethics board analysis treat continued advocacy as the ethically justified course, placing Engineer A's employment at personal risk.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Relationship between Engineer A and XYZ management shifts from professional to adversarial; Engineer A's employment security becomes uncertain; the advocacy issue is now framed internally as a loyalty/embarrassment problem rather than a quality/ethics problem
After Engineer A's public advocacy becomes visible; immediately before Engineer B's threat
XYZ Manufacturing, through Engineer B, perceives Engineer A's public advocacy activities as embarrassing to the company, even though no specific companies or products were named. This perception, whether accurate or not, becomes the triggering condition for the retaliatory threat.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional engineering society guidance
Engineer Citizen Action Standard — Public Advocacy and Employer Loyalty Constraints
Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company in his activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee
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
Engineer A in justifying public advocacy activities; ethical reviewers assessing Engineer B's threatened discharge
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
NSPE Code of Ethics / Professional engineering society guidance
Engineer Civic Service Obligation Standard — Community Well-Being Participation
Engineer Civic Service Obligation Standard
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
Engineer A as basis for forming and leading the Citizens Committee for Quality Products
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
Engineer Employer Loyalty vs. Professional Judgment Standard — Limits of Employer Authority Over Engineer Speech
Engineer Employer Loyalty vs. Professional Judgment Standard
Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company
Ethical reviewers assessing whether Engineer B's threatened discharge is ethically permissible
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
Engineer A Citizen Action Multi-Stakeholder Consideration
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.
Citizen Action Stakeholder Consideration Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics — faithful agent provisions; citizen action stakeholder consideration precedent
Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company
Before and throughout Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
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
Engineer A Citizens Committee Systemic Advocacy Internal Dispute Non-Equivalence Self-Recognition
Systemic Industry-Wide Advocacy vs Particular Company Product Dispute Factual Distinction Capability
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.
Engineer A's decision to pursue industry-wide civic advocacy rather than internal company product dissent
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
Engineer A Civic Advocacy Employer Loyalty Boundary Self-Assessment
Engineer Civic Advocacy Employer Loyalty Boundary Self-Assessment Capability
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.
Engineer A navigated the boundary between employer loyalty and civic advocacy rights while facing discharge threats from Engineer B
Conducting advocacy activities without mentioning his employer or any specific company, thereby limiting actual harm to employer interests while pursuing public welfare goals
Engineer A Civic Advocacy Employment Jeopardy Personal Acceptance
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.
Product Quality Public Welfare Civic Advocacy Employment Jeopardy Acceptance Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Section 2 (public welfare paramount), Section 2(b) (civic service obligation); BER precedent on personal conscience advocacy
Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
From the point of Engineer B's discharge warning onward
Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause, including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies
Engineer A Civic Advocacy Whistleblower Non-Suppression Protection
Engineer B's discharge threat attempted to suppress Engineer A's civic advocacy; the Code's non-suppression provisions constrain such employer conduct.
Engineer B and XYZ Manufacturing Company
Citizen Advocacy Whistleblower Non-Suppression Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics — whistleblower protection provisions; civic service obligation (Section 2(b))
Throughout Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities and following the discharge threat
even though Engineer A had not mentioned the products of his employer or any other specific company
Engineer A Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Duty
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Section 2(b) (civic service obligation); BER articulation that professional ethics elevates civic duty to professional duty
Engineer A joins a group of other engineers, not all of whom work for the same company, who feel the same way
Throughout Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
He feels that this trend toward inferior and shoddy products is due in large part to inadequate engineering
Engineer A Civic Duty Professional Ethics Elevation Citizens Committee Legislative Testimony
Civic Duty Professional Ethics Elevation Self-Recognition Capability
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.
Engineer A's recognition that Citizens Committee civic advocacy was not merely permissible but professionally expected under the ethics code
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'
Engineer A Civic Duty Professional Ethics Elevation Self-Recognition
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.
Engineer A's leadership of the Citizens Committee reflected recognition that his professional engineering knowledge created an elevated civic obligation
Organizing and leading the Citizens Committee as a professional engineer, grounding advocacy in engineering expertise about the relationship between engineering effort and product quality
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.
Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause
Engineer A Employment Loss Acceptance Civic Advocacy Jeopardy Recognition
Employment Loss Acceptance for Public Welfare Advocacy Capability
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.
Engineer A's decision to continue Citizens Committee advocacy despite Engineer B's discharge threat at XYZ Manufacturing
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'
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.
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.
Engineer A Employment Loss Acceptance for Product Welfare Advocacy
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.
Engineer A faced a credible discharge threat from his supervisor and was required to weigh and accept the employment consequences of continuing his advocacy
Continuing Citizens Committee activities despite Engineer B's explicit discharge warning, accepting the personal employment risk as a consequence of principled public welfare advocacy
Engineer A transitions from anonymous participant to named public figure within the advocacy movement; employer risk of associating Engineer A's views with XYZ Manufacturing increases; Engineer A's statements carry greater weight and receive broader attention
After joining the committee; before the threat from Engineer B
As a result of his sustained participation in the Citizens Committee for Quality Products, Engineer A rises to become a leading spokesman for the group. This prominence amplifies his public visibility and correspondingly increases his exposure to employer retaliation.
Engineer A Gains Committee Prominence (Event 2) → Employer Embarrassment Perceived (Event 3)
XYZ Manufacturing, through Engineer B, perceives Engineer A's public advocacy activities as embarrassing to the employer, triggered by Engineer A's elevated visibility within the Citizens Committee
Engineer A Gains Committee Prominence (Event 2)
If Engineer A had remained a low-profile committee member without prominence, XYZ Manufacturing may not have perceived the advocacy as sufficiently embarrassing to warrant a threat; the perception of embarrassment was amplified by Engineer A's visibility
Employer Embarrassment Perceived (Event 3)
Absence of explicit employer-specific criticism in Engineer A's statements
Employer's subjective interpretation of advocacy as reputationally damaging
Engineer A's elevated public profile within the Citizens Committee
XYZ Manufacturing's awareness of Engineer A's advocacy role
Engineer B (on behalf of XYZ Manufacturing)
Engineer A's prominence + employer awareness + employer's reputational sensitivity = perceived embarrassment
Engineer A Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation Escalation Calibration
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.
Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation Escalation Boundary Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity provisions; BER precedent on good faith safety concerns without demonstrable violation
Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company...became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products
Throughout all public statements, newspaper letters, and legislative testimony
Engineer A Industry-Wide Advocacy Employer Non-Identification Concurrence Non-Requirement
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.
Industry-Wide Civic Advocacy Employer Non-Identification Employer Concurrence Non-Requirement Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics — faithful agent provisions; BER Case 61-10 (distinguishing internal product dissent from external industry advocacy)
Throughout Engineer A's participation in the Citizens Committee for Quality Products
Engineer A Legislative Testimony Fact-Grounded Opinion Requirement
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and truthfulness provisions; Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
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
Throughout all Citizens Committee public advocacy activities
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
Engineer A Legislative Testimony NSPE Code Conformance
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.
Engineer Public Testimony NSPE Code Conformance Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics — public testimony provisions; Section 2 (public welfare paramount)
appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
During all legislative appearances on behalf of the Citizens Committee for Quality Products
Engineer A Legislative Testimony Objective Truthfulness
Objective Truthful Public Statement Issuance Capability
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.
Engineer A's public advocacy required truthful and objective communication consistent with professional ethics obligations
Grounding advocacy in professional engineering assessment that inferior products result from inadequate engineering effort, without making false or misleading claims about specific companies
Engineer A NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment
NSPE Code Public Testimony Conformance Self-Assessment Capability
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.
Engineer A's legislative testimony required ongoing self-assessment of conformance with professional ethics code public statement obligations
Appearing before legislative bodies and making public statements in support of minimum product quality standards without naming specific companies
Engineer A Non-Public-Safety Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Recognition
Non-Public-Safety Whistleblowing Personal Conscience Right Recognition Capability
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.
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
Continuing Citizens Committee activities on product quality standards despite discharge threat, exercising personal conscience right in a public welfare (non-imminent-safety) context
Engineer A Non-Safety Product Quality Advocacy Personal Conscience Scope
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.
Professional ethics bodies and Engineer A
Non-Safety Whistleblowing Blanket Mandatory Duty Non-Imposition Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics — Section 2 (public welfare paramount); BER precedent distinguishing mandatory safety escalation from personal conscience advocacy
Throughout the ethics analysis of Engineer A's conduct
in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
Engineer A Probation-Threat Employment Pressure Non-Subordination
Probation-Threat Employment Pressure Non-Subordination of Professional Position Capability
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.
Engineer A faced a direct discharge threat and was required to assess whether that threat justified abandoning his advocacy activities
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
Engineer A Product Quality Engineering Deficiency Public Communication
Product Quality Engineering Deficiency Public Communication Capability
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.
Engineer A served as leading spokesman for the Citizens Committee, communicating engineering-based product quality concerns to multiple public audiences
Public statements, letters to local newspapers, and legislative testimony on behalf of the 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.
Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocacy Permissibility Self-Assessment
Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocacy Permissibility Self-Assessment Capability
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.
Engineer A assessed and acted on the permissibility of civic advocacy for product quality standards while employed by XYZ Manufacturing Company
Co-founding the Citizens Committee, making public statements, writing newspaper letters, and appearing before legislative bodies without naming his employer or any specific company
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.'
Engineer A Profession Public Welfare Mandate Code Provision Grounding Citizens Committee
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.
Engineer A's civic advocacy activities on behalf of the Citizens Committee for Quality Products
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'
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.
Engineer A Professional Ethics Civic Duty Elevation Principle Recognition
Professional Ethics Civic Duty Elevation Principle Recognition Capability
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.
Engineer A's leadership role required application of the civic-duty-elevation principle to assess the professional status of his advocacy activities
Leading the Citizens Committee as a professional engineer, grounding advocacy in engineering expertise and treating civic participation as consistent with professional obligations
Engineer A Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty Discrimination
Whistleblowing Right vs Mandatory Duty Discrimination Capability
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.
Engineer A's situation required discrimination between mandatory professional duties and permissible civic advocacy rights when facing employment consequences
Continuing advocacy activities in the face of discharge threats, exercising the right to advocate for public welfare even at personal employment cost
Engineer A joining the Citizens Committee and becoming a leading spokesman before Engineer B's threat of discharge
Engineer A joins a group... becomes a leading spokesman... Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
Engineer A joining the Citizens Committee and becoming a leading spokesman
Engineer A's professional standing is restored and affirmed; the case becomes a reference point for future engineers considering similar advocacy; the scope of permissible professional speech is clarified
During/after NSPE Ethics Board evaluation; retrospective determination
The NSPE Ethics Board retrospectively determines that Engineer A's public advocacy activities: joining the committee, making general statements, and appearing before legislators, were ethically justified under the NSPE Code of Ethics. This outcome formally resolves the ethical ambiguity surrounding Engineer A's conduct.
Engineer A's professional autonomy is materially constrained by fear of economic harm; the power imbalance between Engineer A and Engineer B becomes acute; Engineer A must now weigh personal economic security against professional ethical obligations
Simultaneous with and immediately following Engineer B's threat
As a direct result of Engineer B's threat of discharge, Engineer A's employment status becomes precarious and uncertain. This is the concrete outcome of the threat action. Engineer A now faces a real risk of job loss that constrains his future choices.
Engineer A's advocacy activities overlaps Engineer A's employment at XYZ Manufacturing
Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company... becomes a leading spokesman for their cause... Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A, warned him
Engineer A's employment at XYZ Manufacturing
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
Engineer A's concern about inferior products before Engineer A joining the Citizens Committee
Engineer A... became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products... Engineer A joins a group of other engineers... They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products'
Engineer A's concern about inferior products
Engineer A joining the Citizens Committee
Engineer A's public advocacy (letters, legislative appearances) before Engineer B's warning
Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman... including public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies... Engineer B warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged
Engineer A's public advocacy (letters, legislative appearances)
Engineer B Discharge Threat Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification
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.
Engineer B (supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing Company)
Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Civic Advocacy Suppression Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics — civic service and public welfare provisions; BER Case 61-10 distinction between internal product dissent and external industry advocacy
At the time Engineer B issued the discharge warning and throughout the period of Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
Engineer B Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification Discharge Threat Failure
Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Advocacy Suppression Recognition Capability
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.
Engineer B's discharge threat against Engineer A for Citizens Committee activities at XYZ Manufacturing
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
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.
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.
Engineer B Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Advocacy Suppression Recognition
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.
Engineer B threatened discharge based solely on employer embarrassment, demonstrating absence of the capability to recognize that embarrassment alone does not justify advocacy suppression
Engineer B's failure to recognize the illegitimacy of embarrassment-based discharge threats, as evidenced by his warning to Engineer A
Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor
Engineer B Engineer Civic Advocacy Employer Non-Interference Recognition
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.
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
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
Engineer B Good Intent Non-Excuse — Code Violation Through Civic Advocacy Suppression
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.
Supervisor Public Welfare Code Subordination Through Discharge Threat Prohibition Constraint
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.
NSPE BER Discussion; NSPE Code Section 2, 2(a), 2(b)
At the time of Engineer B's discharge threat directed at Engineer A
Engineer B Independent Code Violation Through Civic Advocacy Suppression
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.
Supervisor Engineer Code Violation Through Subordinate Civic Advocacy Suppression Constraint
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics — individual applicability; NSPE Board of Directors directive (January 1971) on business-form non-influence; civic service and public welfare provisions
At the time of and following the discharge warning issued to Engineer A
Engineer B Supervisor Code-Binding Non-Exemption Employer-Protective Intent Failure
Supervisor Code-Binding Non-Exemption for Employer-Protective Conduct Recognition Capability
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.
Engineer B's discharge threat against Engineer A for Citizens Committee civic advocacy activities at XYZ Manufacturing
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
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.
Engineer B — Code Individual Applicability Non-Exemption for Supervisory Role
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.
Engineer B (supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing)
Business-Form Non-Influence on Individual Ethics Code Conformance Constraint
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.
NSPE BER Discussion; NSPE Code individual applicability principle; Section 2, 2(a), 2(b)
Throughout Engineer B's supervisory conduct toward Engineer A
Engineer B — Supervisor Public Welfare Code Subordination Through Discharge Threat
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.
Engineer B (supervisory engineer at XYZ Manufacturing)
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2, Section 2(a), Section 2(b); NSPE BER Discussion
At the time Engineer B threatened Engineer A with discharge
Engineer B's conduct is formally classified as a Code violation; the case establishes precedent that retaliating against engineers for legitimate public advocacy is itself professionally sanctionable; Engineer A's conduct is retrospectively validated as ethical
Upon retrospective analysis by the NSPE Ethics Board, Engineer B's threat of discharge is determined to itself constitute a violation of the NSPE Code of Ethics. This is an outcome of the Ethics Board's deliberative process and transforms the threat from a workplace conflict into a formal professional ethics matter.
Engineer B's threat before Discussion/ethical analysis of the case
The Discussion section retrospectively analyzes these events against the NSPE Code of Ethics, concluding that Engineer A's actions were ethically justified and that Engineer B's threat was itself a Code violation
Ethics Board Case 61-10 Factual Distinction Citizens Committee Systemic Advocacy
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.
BER analysis distinguishing Citizens Committee industry-wide advocacy from Case 61-10 internal company product dissent scenario
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'
Ethics Board Ethics Code Individual-Only Corporate Non-Rescue Recognition Citizens Committee
Ethics Code Individual-Engineer Corporate Non-Rescue Limitation Recognition Capability
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.
BER analysis of the practical limits of ethics code protection for engineers facing employer retaliation for civic advocacy
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
Clarifies that Code obligations are personal and cannot be subordinated to managerial role
Creates precedent that engineering supervisors cannot use managerial authority to suppress subordinates' public welfare advocacy
May create tension with employer authority structures in engineering workplaces
Duty to protect the integrity of public welfare obligations across all engineering roles
Duty to provide guidance that deters Code violations by engineers in supervisory positions
Institutional duty to interpret and apply Code of Ethics comprehensively
Code applies to all individual engineers regardless of managerial role
Institutional integrity requires addressing all Code violations identified in a case, not only those of the primary subject
Public welfare obligations cannot be subordinated to employer loyalty even by supervisors
deliberate and principled institutional judgment
Establish that the Code's public welfare obligations bind supervisors and managers as individual engineers, and that using supervisory authority to suppress Code-mandated advocacy is itself a Code violation
Ability to distinguish between employer business decisions and individual engineer ethical obligations
Authoritative interpretation of NSPE Code of Ethics
Institutional judgment to set precedent through case analysis
Retrospective analysis in the case discussion section
The NSPE ethics board made a deliberate analytical decision to evaluate Engineer B's conduct as an independent potential Code violation, rather than limiting its review solely to the question of whether Engineer A's advocacy was permissible. This framing choice broadened the ethical accountability of the case.
Ethics Board Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Assessment Citizens Committee
Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Evaluation Capability
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.
BER evaluation of whether Citizens Committee engineers' legislative advocacy for product quality standards was ethically permissible
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'
Whether or not the engineer-members of the Citizens Committee were justified in their opinions is not germane to this case.
It is sufficient to assume that they were sincere in those opinions and believed they were serving the public interest in their activities.
Ethics Board Multi-Company Collective Civic Advocacy Coordination Permissibility Recognition
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.
BER evaluation of the Citizens Committee's cross-company collective civic advocacy for legislative product quality standards
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
Ethics Board Public Welfare Paramountcy Code Provision Application Citizens Committee
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
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.
BER analysis of the conflict between XYZ Manufacturing's commercial interests and the public welfare mandate of the ethics code
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
Ethics Code Corporate Non-Rescue — XYZ Manufacturing Punitive Action Against Citizens Committee Engineers
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.
Engineer A and Citizens Committee engineer-members facing employer punitive action
Ethics Code Corporate Non-Rescue Individual Engineer Punitive Action Constraint
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.
NSPE BER Discussion; NSPE Code individual applicability principle
Throughout the period of Citizens Committee advocacy and potential employer retaliation
U.S. Constitutional law / Supreme Court jurisprudence
First Amendment Constitutional Protections — Engineer Public Speech and Advocacy
First Amendment Professional Code Constraint
public statements, letters to local newspapers and appearance before legislative bodies in support of laws to impose minimum standards for commercial products
Engineer A as background legal protection for public advocacy activities
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
Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency — Citizens Committee Advocacy Evaluation
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.
Ethics Board evaluating Citizens Committee engineers' advocacy
Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Civic Advocacy Correctness Non-Requirement Constraint
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.
NSPE BER Discussion — Citizens Committee case; NSPE Code Section 2 and Section 2(b)
At the time of ethics board evaluation of the case
Potential perception of disloyalty or embarrassment to employer
Risk of professional retaliation from employer
Duty to have proper regard for safety, health, and welfare of the public (Code Section 2)
Duty to seek opportunities for constructive civic service (Code Section 2b)
Good faith advocacy for societal benefit
Raise awareness of inadequate engineering in commercial products and advocate for industry-wide quality standards in the public interest
Potential tension with duty as faithful agent or trustee to employer (Code Section 1), though not a direct violation since no employer-specific information was disclosed
Ability to distinguish between employer-specific criticism and industry-wide advocacy
Engineering judgment regarding product quality and durability
Public communication and advocacy skills
Early in the case, prior to any employer warning
Engineer A voluntarily joined a cross-company group of engineers concerned about inferior commercial products and assumed a leading spokesman role for the Citizens Committee for Quality Products. This was a deliberate professional and civic commitment beyond his employment duties.
Joining Citizens Committee Advocacy (Action 1) → Engineer A Gains Committee Prominence (Event 2)
As a result of his sustained participation in the Citizens Committee for Quality Products, Engineer A gains prominence within the advocacy group
Joining Citizens Committee Advocacy (Action 1)
Without Engineer A's initial decision to join and maintain participation, he would not have gained prominence; prominence was contingent entirely on continued voluntary engagement
Engineer A's voluntary decision to join the Citizens Committee
Existence of the Citizens Committee as an organized advocacy body
Sustained and consistent participation over time
Voluntary joining + sustained participation + organized committee structure = prominence achieved
Employer may still perceive general advocacy as implicitly critical
Limiting specificity may reduce persuasive impact on legislators or public
Duty as faithful agent or trustee to employer by not disclosing employer-specific information (Code Section 1)
Duty to public welfare through broad advocacy (Code Section 2, 2a, 2b)
Integrity in professional relations by not misrepresenting or unfairly targeting employers
Balance between public service and employer loyalty
Distinction between industry-wide critique and company-specific criticism
Engineer A (Staff Engineer, XYZ Manufacturing Company) and Citizens Committee members
Advocate for industry-wide quality standards without directly implicating or embarrassing any specific employer, thereby preserving the legitimacy and reach of the advocacy
Strategic communication and message framing
Understanding of ethical boundaries between civic advocacy and employer disclosure
Throughout the advocacy period, concurrent with all public activities
Engineer A and the Citizens Committee deliberately chose to keep all public statements, letters, and legislative testimony general in scope, refraining from naming XYZ Manufacturing or any specific company or product. This was a conscious boundary-setting decision within their advocacy strategy.
Keeping Advocacy Statements General (Action 2) + Continuing Advocacy Despite Threat (Action 4) → Engineer A's Advocacy Validated (Event 6)
The NSPE Ethics Board retrospectively determines that Engineer A's public advocacy activities: joining the committee, keeping statements general, and continuing despite the threat, were consistent with and protected by the engineering code of ethics
Keeping Advocacy Statements General (Action 2) + Continuing Advocacy Despite Threat (Action 4)
If Engineer A had made employer-specific or confidential statements, the advocacy would not have been validated; if Engineer A had ceased advocacy under threat, there would have been no conduct to validate; without NSPE evaluation, validation would not have been formally established
Engineer A's Advocacy Validated (Event 6)
Engineer A's decision to continue advocacy despite the discharge threat (Action 4)
Engineer A's deliberate choice to keep advocacy statements general and non-employer-specific (Action 2)
NSPE Ethics Board's independent evaluation of Engineer A's conduct (Action 5)
The advocacy activities not constituting a breach of confidentiality, professional duty, or employer-specific harm
Engineer A (primary); NSPE Ethics Board (secondary, institutional)
General statements + no breach of professional duty + continued lawful advocacy + NSPE review = advocacy validated as ethically compliant
Legislative bodies (proposed by citizen advocacy group)
Proposed Minimum Standards for Commercial Home-Use Products
Minimum Product Quality Legislative Standard
an increase in engineering effort could produce products of greater durability and efficiency
Citizens Committee for Quality Products; Engineer A in legislative testimony
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
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers — Provisions on Public Welfare and Citizen Action
Engineer A (as justification for advocacy); Engineer B (implicitly, as constraint on employer authority)
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
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 1: Integrity and Faithful Agency
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.'
BER in contextualizing the tension between employer loyalty and public welfare duties
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
Historical (pre-revision; section no longer exists in current form)
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 2 and Section 2(a): Public Safety, Health, and Welfare
Section 2 – 'The Engineer will have proper regard for the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties.'
Section 2(a) – 'He will regard his duty to the public welfare as paramount.'
BER in evaluating Engineer A's and Engineer B's conduct
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
Historical (pre-revision; sections no longer exist in current form)
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section 2(b): Constructive Civic Service
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.'
BER in affirming Engineer A's conduct and condemning Engineer B's threat
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
Non-Safety Civic Advocacy — Personal Conscience vs. Mandatory Duty Boundary
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.
Ethics Board evaluating Citizens Committee engineers' advocacy obligations
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.
NSPE BER Discussion; NSPE Code Section 2(b); contrast with mandatory safety reporting provisions
Industry quality baseline degrades; engineers with knowledge of standards become aware of gap between acceptable and actual product quality; conditions for whistleblowing concern are established
Prior to Engineer A's committee involvement; background condition
A discernible trend toward inferior commercial products emerges in the manufacturing sector, observable to engineers working within the industry. This decline becomes the foundational condition that motivates Engineer A's subsequent advocacy activities.
Product Welfare Advocacy Employment Jeopardy Acceptance — Engineer A Citizens Committee
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.
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.
NSPE BER Discussion; NSPE Code Section 2(b)
At the time of Engineer A's decision to continue Citizens Committee activities despite discharge threat
Professional engineering ethics guidance
Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework — Legislative Testimony by Engineers
Public Safety Standards Hearing Participation Framework
Engineer A in legislative testimony on commercial product standards
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
Public Welfare Paramount Mandate — Citizens Committee Civic Advocacy Permissibility
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section 2 and Section 2(a); NSPE BER Discussion
Was Engineer A in violation of the Code of Ethics?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Was Engineer B in violation of the Code of Ethics?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Own potential Code violation by threatening to preclude public welfare advocacy
Potential chilling effect on other engineers' public welfare activities
Suppression of a subordinate engineer's Code-mandated civic engagement
Perceived duty as faithful agent to employer by attempting to protect employer reputation (Code Section 1, from employer's perspective)
Employer loyalty (as Engineer B construed it)
deliberate and protective of employer interests
Protect XYZ Manufacturing Company from perceived public embarrassment by halting Engineer A's external advocacy activities
Knowledge of NSPE Code of Ethics provisions applicable to supervisors
Supervisory and personnel management authority
Understanding of employer-employee professional obligations
After Engineer A's advocacy activities became publicly visible, prior to any discharge
Duty to have proper regard for public welfare (Code Section 2)
Duty to support constructive civic service by engineers (Code Section 2b)
Duty to treat public welfare as paramount (Code Section 2a)
Integrity in professional relations by using coercive threat to suppress legitimate professional conduct (Code Section 1, applied to Engineer B's own conduct)
Engineer B, as Engineer A's supervisor, explicitly warned Engineer A that continued participation in the Citizens Committee's activities would result in his discharge, citing embarrassment to the employer. This was a deliberate managerial intervention intended to suppress Engineer A's external advocacy.
Threatening Discharge for Advocacy (Action 3) → Engineer A's Employment Threatened (Event 4)
As a direct result of Engineer B's threat of discharge, Engineer A's employment status becomes precarious, placing Engineer A under professional and financial pressure
Threatening Discharge for Advocacy (Action 3)
Without Engineer B's explicit threat, Engineer A's employment would not have been placed in jeopardy; the threat was the direct and sole mechanism by which employment became precarious
Engineer A's Employment Threatened (Event 4)
Engineer A's continued advocacy activities that triggered the threat
Engineer A's employment relationship with XYZ Manufacturing
Engineer B's explicit issuance of a discharge threat
Engineer B's supervisory authority over Engineer A
Supervisory authority + explicit discharge threat + employment dependency = employment status made precarious
Threatening Discharge for Advocacy (Action 3) → Engineer B's Code Violation Established (Event 5)
Upon retrospective analysis by the NSPE Ethics Board, Engineer B's threat of discharge is determined to constitute a violation of the engineering professional code of ethics
If Engineer B had not issued the discharge threat, no code violation would have occurred; alternatively, if the NSPE Ethics Board had not evaluated the conduct, the violation would not have been formally established even if it existed substantively
Engineer B's Code Violation Established (Event 5)
Engineer A's advocacy being general and not constituting a breach of employer confidentiality or professional duty
Engineer B's explicit issuance of a discharge threat tied to Engineer A's lawful advocacy
Existence of a professional code of ethics prohibiting retaliation against engineers for lawful public advocacy
NSPE Ethics Board's deliberate decision to evaluate Engineer B's conduct (Action 5)
Discharge threat for lawful advocacy + professional code prohibiting such retaliation + NSPE evaluation = code violation established
XYZ Manufacturing Company Code Individual Applicability Non-Organization
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.
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.
NSPE Code of Ethics — individual applicability; NSPE Board of Directors directive (January 1971)
Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company
Throughout the events described in the case
Engineer B, the supervisor of Engineer A
XYZ Manufacturing Company Engineer Civic Advocacy Non-Interference
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.
XYZ Manufacturing's institutional response to Engineer A's advocacy required recognition that embarrassment-based suppression exceeds legitimate employer authority
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
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
Systemic industry-wide public welfare advocacy was found to be code-sanctioned and distinct from internal employer product quality disputes
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
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.95
The civic duty elevated to professional duty supports Engineer A's continued advocacy; the employer's embarrassment concern does not override this elevated obligation.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
The professional duty to engage in civic affairs for public welfare advancement was found to override employer commercial embarrassment concerns
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.92
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.93
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
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.
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.
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.
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.
Civic advocacy freedom was found to prevail over employer commercial embarrassment concerns; the absence of employer identification or confidential information use was key
Industry-wide systemic advocacy was found to fall outside the Case 61-10 management-deference principle and within the affirmative public welfare advocacy mandate
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
The principle resolves the tension in favor of Engineer A's continued advocacy; the embarrassment rationale is categorically insufficient to justify suppression.
Engineer B's personal code obligations were found to override the employer-protective supervisory action; good intent toward employer did not cure the violation
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
Engineers must accept personal employment risk; the code cannot protect them from corporate retaliation but does validate their professional conduct
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Colleagues
invokedby: Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
invokedby: Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor
invokedby: Product Manufacturing Employer
invokedby: Citizens Committee Engineer Members
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 r
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 re
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 e
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, repr
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 w
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
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 indi
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 publ
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 affirmat
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 g
The ethics board distinguished the Citizens Committee's industry-wide legislative advocacy for minimum quality standards from Case 61-10's internal product quality dispute, finding that management deference applies only to the latt
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
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
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'
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 reputationa
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 subordi
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 prof
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 eng
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
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 systematicall
obligatedparty: XYZ Manufacturing Company / Engineer B
obligatedparty: XYZ Manufacturing / Engineer B (as employer and supervisor)
obligatedparty: Engineer B (engineering supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing)
obligatedparty: Engineer B (supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing)
obligatedparty: Engineer A and the engineering profession
obligatedparty: Engineer A and Citizens Committee engineer members
obligatedparty: Citizens Committee engineer members
obligatedparty: BER Ethics Board and Citizens Committee engineers
Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency Citizens Committee Evaluation
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.
Good Faith Sincerity Sufficiency for Civic Advocacy Evaluation Obligation
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.
Case 61-10 Precedent Distinction — Industry-Wide vs. Employer-Specific Advocacy
During the ethics board's deliberation and ruling on this case
What we have said does not conflict with the holding in Case 61-10
Industry-Wide Advocacy Distinguished from Employer-Specific Product Dissent State
The ethical analysis distinguishing Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities from the Case 61-10 internal product dissent scenario
Ethics board's formal ruling distinguishing the two scenarios and affirming Engineer A's entitlement to engage in industry-wide civic advocacy
This we believe they are entitled to do under the Code
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
Code Individual-Not-Organization Applicability — Employer Cannot Be Held to Code
Throughout the ethics board's analysis and ruling
Code Individual-Not-Organization Applicability Clarification Active State
The clarification that the professional code applies only to individual engineers (Engineer A, Engineer B) and not to their shared employer company
Ethics board ruling confirming this limitation
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
Engineer A Competing Duties — Public Welfare vs. Employer Loyalty
From the point of the employer's termination warning onward
Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company... became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products
Engineer A's simultaneous obligations to public welfare (through civic advocacy) and to employer loyalty (as an employee of XYZ Manufacturing)
Employer's threat of discharge creating direct tension between Engineer A's civic advocacy role and his employment obligations
Engineer A Product Quality Advocacy Activity
From Engineer A joining the Citizens Committee through the period of public statements, newspaper letters, and legislative appearances
External Civic Advocacy Without Employer Identification State
Engineer A's participation in Citizens Committee for Quality Products
Not terminated in the case facts; ongoing at time of employer warning
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
Engineer A joining the Citizens Committee for Quality Products and becoming its leading spokesman
Engineer A Product Quality Public Safety Concern
From Engineer A's initial recognition of the trend through the duration of his advocacy activities
Engineer A... became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products for sale to the public
Good Faith Safety Concern Without Demonstrable Violation State
Engineer A's professional concern about the trend toward inferior commercial products and its implications for public welfare
Engineer A's professional observation of a trend toward 'cheap,' inferior products due to inadequate engineering
Engineer A Whistleblower Employment Jeopardy
From Engineer B's formal warning through the unresolved case endpoint
Engineer A's personal employment security in the context of his public interest advocacy activities
Supervisor's explicit warning that continued advocacy will result in discharge
Engineer A — Employment Jeopardy from Civic Advocacy Continuation
From Engineer B's threat through the ethics board ruling
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
Ethics board ruling affirming Engineer A's entitlement to continue but acknowledging the Code cannot protect against employer retaliation
Engineer B's threat of discharge if Engineer A continued Citizens Committee activities
Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Invoked in XYZ Manufacturing Context
Engineer A's professional public welfare obligations
XYZ Manufacturing's commercial reputational interest
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.
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.
Engineering Business-Profession Duality Integrity Principle
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.
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.
Engineer A, employed by the XYZ Manufacturing Company, which produces and sells a variety of commercial home-use products
{'sector': 'Private commercial product manufacturing', 'authority': 'Employment decisions including discharge', 'code_applicability': 'Code applies only to individual engineers, not companies'}
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.
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Citizens Committee Engineer Colleagues'}
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate'}
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor'}
Commercial Product Manufacturing Engineering Employer
the Code will not rescue them because the Code applies only to individual engineers and not to companies
If punitive action is taken by one or more employers of the engineers engaged in this activity
intending to act in the best interests of his employer
{'product_type': 'Commercial home-use products (variety)', 'concern': "Reputational embarrassment from employee's public advocacy", 'named_in_advocacy': False}
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.
{'type': 'represented_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor'}
XYZ Manufacturing Company, which produces and sells a variety of commercial home-use products
he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
Engineer Pressure Resistance Invoked Against Engineer B's Discharge Threat
XYZ Manufacturing Company's commercial reputational interest
Employment Loss Acceptance as Cost of Public Safety Whistleblowing
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.
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.
Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate
Engineer Pressure Resistance and Ethical Non-Subordination to Organizational Demands
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.
Citizens Committee Engineers Collective Civic Advocacy Permissibility
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.
Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocacy Public Welfare Permissibility Obligation
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.
Throughout the Citizens Committee's formation and advocacy activities
Engineer A Employment Termination Threat
From Engineer B's warning through the unresolved decision point in the case
Employer Termination Threat for External Civic Advocacy State
Engineer A's employment relationship with XYZ Manufacturing Company under threat due to civic advocacy
Engineer B (supervisor) warning Engineer A that continued advocacy activities would result in discharge for putting the employer in an embarrassing position
Engineer B — Supervisor Code Violation by Threatening Subordinate's Civic Advocacy
From Engineer B's issuance of the discharge threat through the ethics board's ruling
Supervisor Code Violation by Precluding Subordinate Public Welfare Activity State
Engineer B's supervisory conduct in threatening Engineer A with discharge for Citizens Committee activities
Ethics board ruling finding Engineer B in conflict with the Code
Engineer B threatening Engineer A with possible discharge if he continued Citizens Committee activities
Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom Invoked for Engineer A's Citizens Committee Activities
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
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.
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.
Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom Principle
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.
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.
Engineer Professional Autonomy Preservation Invoked for Engineer A's Advocacy Independence
Citizens Committee for Quality Products activities
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.
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.
Engineer Professional Autonomy and Independence Preservation Principle
Engineer A becomes a leading spokesman for their cause... Engineer B warned him that if he continued in his activities, he would be discharged.
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.
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Applied to Engineer B's Supervisory Role
Engineer B's supervisory direction to Engineer A to cease Citizens Committee activities
XYZ Manufacturing's commercial interest in suppressing public advocacy
Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Suppression of Legitimate Public Advocacy
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
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
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
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.
Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity Sufficiency Invoked for Citizens Committee Evaluation
Citizens Committee engineers' technical opinions on commercial product quality
Ethics board evaluation of whether advocacy activities were code-sanctioned
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
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
Good Faith Public Welfare Sincerity Sufficiency Principle
Good faith sincerity was found sufficient for code protection; technical merit of advocacy position was deemed irrelevant to the ethics analysis
Product Safety Minimum Standards Legislative Advocacy Obligation Invoked by Engineer A and Citizens Committee
Legislative advocacy for minimum product standards
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.
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.
Product Safety Minimum Standards Legislative Advocacy as Engineering Public Welfare Obligation
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.
became concerned about what he regards as a trend toward the production of 'cheap' products for sale to the public
Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation Invoked for Engineer A's Legislative Appearances
Legislative testimony on minimum product standards
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.
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.
Public Interest Engineering Testimony Obligation
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.
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Citizens Committee Engineers
Citizens Committee for Quality Products advocacy activities
Legislative advocacy for minimum product quality standards
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
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
It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare
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
Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification Principle Invoked Against Engineer B's Threat
Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities
XYZ Manufacturing Company's reputational concern
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.
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.
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.
Employment Loss Acceptance as Cost of Public Welfare Advocacy Invoked for Engineer A
Engineer A's decision whether to continue Citizens Committee activities
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.
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.
Ethics Board Case 61-10 Systemic Advocacy Internal Dispute Distinction
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.
Systemic Industry-Wide Advocacy Internal Product Dispute Non-Equivalence Recognition Obligation
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.
Ethics Code Company Non-Applicability Invoked Regarding Employer Retaliation
Limits of ethics code enforcement against corporate employers
Potential employer retaliation against Citizens Committee engineers
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
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
Ethics Code Individual-Person Applicability Non-Waivability Through Business Form
Product Safety Legislative Advocacy Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
Citizens Committee for Quality Products legislative advocacy
Public statements and newspaper communications on product quality standards
Business Decision Boundary Between Management Authority and Engineering Ethics Jurisdiction
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
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
{'group': 'Citizens Committee', 'advocacy_basis': 'Sincere belief in serving public interest', 'employer_risk': 'Potential punitive action from respective employers'}
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.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Commercial Product Manufacturing Engineering Employer'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate'}
Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate Engineer
engineer-members of the Citizens Committee
Engineer A and his colleagues are doing is taking upon themselves what they regard to be a public service
Engineer A Civic Advocacy Employer Non-Interference Right
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.
Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Employer Non-Interference Obligation
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.
Throughout Engineer A's Citizens Committee activities and at the time of Engineer B's discharge warning
Engineer A Legislative Testimony Public Interest Grounding
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.
Fact-Based Public Policy Statement Obligation
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.
Throughout all public statements, media communications, and legislative appearances on behalf of the Citizens Committee
Ethics Code Individual-Only Applicability Corporate Non-Rescue Recognition Citizens Committee
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.
BER Ethics Board and Citizens Committee engineers
Ethics Code Individual-Engineer-Only Applicability Corporate Non-Rescue Recognition Obligation
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.
At the time of ethics case evaluation and throughout the advocacy activities
Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Duty Invoked for Citizens Committee Activities
Citizens Committee for Quality Products civic advocacy
Legislative testimony and public statements on product quality standards
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
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
Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Ethical Duty Principle
Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification Invoked Against Engineer B's Threat
Engineer B's threat of discharge against Engineer A
XYZ Manufacturing's commercial interest in suppressing Citizens Committee advocacy
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
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
Engineer A Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Duty Recognition
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.
Engineer A and the engineering profession
Civic Duty Professional Ethics Elevation Recognition Obligation
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.
Engineer Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom Invoked for Citizens Committee
Citizens Committee for Quality Products formation and activities
Public and legislative advocacy for minimum product quality standards
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
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
Loyalty Boundary Invoked in Engineer A vs. XYZ Manufacturing Tension
XYZ Manufacturing's reputational interest
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.
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.
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Through Citizens Committee Advocacy
Citizens Committee for Quality Products advocacy
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.
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.
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.
Systemic Industry-Wide Advocacy Non-Equivalence Invoked to Distinguish Case 61-10
Case 61-10 precedent distinguishing analysis
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
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))
Systemic Industry-Wide Advocacy Non-Equivalence to Internal Product Quality Dispute Principle
Civic Duty Elevation to Professional Ethical Duty Invoked by Engineer A's Legislative Advocacy
Citizens Committee for Quality Products formation and advocacy
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.
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.
Employment Loss Acceptance Invoked for Citizens Committee Engineers
Citizens Committee engineers' risk of discharge for public advocacy activities
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
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
Engineer B Ethics Code Binding Supervisor Non-Exemption Public Welfare Provisions
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.
Engineer B (engineering supervisor at XYZ Manufacturing)
Ethics Code Organizational-Form Non-Excuse Individual Engineer Compliance Obligation
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.
At the time Engineer B issued the discharge threat
Engineer B, even though intending to act in the best interests of his employer, is in conflict with the cited sections of the Code
{'membership': 'Multiple engineers from different companies', 'organization': 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products', 'advocacy_focus': 'Minimum standards for commercial products'}
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.
{'type': 'colleague_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate'}
They form a 'Citizens Committee for Quality Products'
Citizens Committee Engineers Public Welfare Civic Advocacy Permissibility
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.
Engineer A and Citizens Committee engineer members
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.
Throughout the Citizens Committee advocacy activities
Engineer A Extra-Employment Civic Advocacy Freedom Citizens Committee
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.
XYZ Manufacturing / Engineer B (as employer and supervisor)
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.
Engineer B Supervisor Employer-Protective Intent Non-Excuse Code Violation
Engineer B warned Engineer A that continued Citizens Committee public advocacy activities would result in discharge, citing XYZ Manufacturing's commercial and reputational interests.
Supervisor Employer-Protective Intent Non-Excuse for Public Welfare Code Subordination Obligation
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.
Engineer A Civic Duty Elevation Professional Duty Citizens Committee Legislative Testimony
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.
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.
Supervisor Ethics Code Binding Non-Exemption Invoked Against Engineer B
Engineer B's discharge threat against Engineer A
Engineer B's personal ethics code obligations as a licensed engineer
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
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
Supervisor Ethics Code Binding Non-Exemption Through Employer-Protective Intent Principle
Engineer B Civic Advocacy Suppression Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification
Engineer B's sole stated justification for the discharge threat was protecting XYZ Manufacturing's interests from the Citizens Committee's public advocacy activities.
Employer Embarrassment Non-Justification for Civic Advocacy Suppression Obligation
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.
Citizens Committee Engineers Employment Jeopardy Acceptance Civic Advocacy
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.
Product Welfare Advocacy Employment Loss Acceptance Obligation
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.
Throughout the Citizens Committee advocacy activities and upon deciding to continue them
Engineer A Product Quality Legislative Advocacy Permissibility
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.
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.
Throughout Engineer A's participation in the Citizens Committee and legislative advocacy activities
{'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'}
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.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'XYZ Manufacturing Company'}
{'type': 'peer_colleague', 'target': 'Citizens Committee Engineer Members'}
{'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Discharge-Threatening Supervisor'}
Engineer A joins a group of other engineers...who feel the same way
{'authority': 'Direct supervisor of Engineer A', 'action_taken': 'Issued termination warning', 'stated_rationale': 'Engineer A was putting employer in embarrassing position'}
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.
{'type': 'represents_interests_of', 'target': 'XYZ Manufacturing Company'}
{'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Engineer A Product Quality Standards Legislative Advocate'}
Discharge-Threatening Engineering Supervisor
because he was putting his employer in an embarrassing position
Engineer B Employer Embarrassment Discharge Threat Non-Justification
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.
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.
At the time Engineer B issued the discharge warning to Engineer A
Engineer A Employer Loyalty Boundary in Civic Advocacy
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.
Engineer Citizen Advocacy Employer Loyalty Boundary Obligation
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.