Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 15-8 (2015) · Confidentiality of Competitor Information Submitted to Government Agency

How this case resolved it

No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.

Resolved without defeat

The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.

specification
Because Engineer A's knowledge base separates into general engineering competence and Company X specific confidential details, the Board concluded she could act as a faithful agent to Company Y by fully applying the former while excluding the latter, a resolution that would fail if her assigned work could not be performed without relying on Company X's...
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 15-8:
  • Engineer A is free to pursue employment with Company Y provided Engineer A does not disclose any confidential and proprietary design information Engineer A learned about Company X during Engineer A’s employment with the government agency and makes this obligation clear to Company Y before accepting employment.