Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 20-1 (2020) · Job Qualifications—Disclosure of Material Fact
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
Featured
Engineer F BER 03-6 Contractor License Revocation Non-Disclosure
prevails over
Engineer A BER 97-11 Pending Allegation Prudential Weighing
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Pending Ethics Complaint Non-Disclosure to Client B
Engineer A BER 19-1 Medical Condition Non-Disclosure Privacy Protection
prevails over
Engineer Intern A Pre-Interview PE Exam Attempt Non-Disclosure
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer Intern A Pre-Hire PE Failure Non-Disclosure
Engineer Intern A PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Assessment
prevails over
Engineer Intern A Pre-Interview PE Exam Attempt Non-Disclosure
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer Intern A Pre-Hire PE Failure Non-Disclosure
Engineer Intern A Faithful Agent Post-Hire Risk Notification
prevails over
Engineer Intern A Prudential Disclosure Relational Self-Protection
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer Intern A Prudent Disclosure Foregone Vulnerability
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A BER 19-1 Medical Condition Non-Disclosure Privacy Protection vs Engineer Intern A Material Omission Privacy Balance Assessment
Engineer F BER 03-6 Contractor License Revocation Non-Disclosure vs Engineer F BER 03-6 Non-Engineering License Disciplinary History Non-Disclosure
Engineer Intern A Faithful Agent Post-Hire Risk Notification vs Engineer Intern A Licensure Condition Acceptance Honest Representation
Engineer Intern A Licensure Condition Acceptance Honest Representation vs Engineer Intern A PE Exam Failure Non-Disclosure Materiality Assessment
Engineer Intern A Pre-Interview PE Exam Attempt Non-Disclosure vs XYZ Consultants Hiring Authority Licensure Due Diligence Inquiry
What the board concluded
- It was imprudent but not unethical for Engineer Intern A not to have mentioned at the interview his two previous failures to pass the PE exam, as the question was not asked by XYZ Consultants.