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. More specifically, Engineer Intern A’s failure to disclose the two previous exam failures seriously undermined his trust relationship with XYZ Consultants.

The Board of Ethical Review (hereafter, the Board) has ruled on numerous occasions that the privileges, aspirations, and obligations of engineering work apply throughout all phases of an engineer’s career, starting with engineering school, emerging through the intern phase, and continuing through practice. Thus, the ethics of an engineer’s employment lie squarely within the Board’s purview, and the Board has considered such matters in past cases. In BER Case 19-1, Engineer A failed to disclose a medical condition from fear of discrimination by the employer. The engineer did not lie, falsify statements, compromise the highest standards of honesty or integrity, or misrepresent his qualifications prior to his obtaining employment, but he stopped short of pointing out that he had autism, more specifically, Asperger’s Syndrome. Engineer A was concerned that doing so might place his career in jeopardy, or at the least, limit his career options. Could this be considered an omission of facts, a duty to disclose, or a deception? The Board found that although Engineer A was free to disclose his autism, the NSPE Code of Ethics does not compel disclosure. In that case, the Board found that Engineer A had a personal right to privacy. BER Case 97-11 relates how, during the rendering of services to Client B on a manufacturing project, the state board of professional engineers contacted Engineer A regarding an ethics complaint filed against Engineer A by Client C. The complaint related to services provided on a project for Client C that were similar to the services being performed for Client B. Client C alleged that Engineer A lacked the competence to perform the services in question. Engineer A did not believe it was necessary to notify Client B of the pending complaint. Later, through another party, Client B learned of the ethics complaint filed against Engineer A and told Engineer A that he was upset by the allegations and that Engineer A should have brought the matter to Clie...

Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y with a BS in engineering, an MS in management, and five years of experience, was planning on relocating to State X and applied for a position advertised by XYZ Consultants. The qualifications listed in the advertisement included 4+ years’ experience, with a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire. At his interview, Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks. He also explains that he will be relocating to State X in several months and will be available for work. Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask. XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license. A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to hissupervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that histhird attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful. Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.

Was it ethical for Engineer Intern A not to have mentioned at the interview his two previous failures at passing the PE exam if he was not asked that question by XYZ Consultants?