Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 16-10 (2016) · Public Health, Safety and Welfare-Former Employee's Participation in a Public Safety Standards Hearing

Case Precedents
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.

dissolution
Analytical conclusion 1: The Board did not rank Confidentiality Toward Company X a...
Because Engineer A's general safety knowledge could be separated from Company X's specific confidential business information, the board concluded that both public welfare and confidentiality could be honored simultaneously through scope-limited testimony rather than by subordinating one duty to the other.
specification
Analytical conclusion 4: Q104: Engineer A must distinguish between (a) proprietary...
Given that some of Engineer A's knowledge predates or is independent of the Company X engagement while other knowledge derives from proprietary internal data, the board concluded that Engineer A can testify by relying on the former category and withholding the latter.
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 16-10:
  • The NSPE Board of Ethical Review does not believe there is any clear ethical prohibition on Engineer A from participating in the public safety standards hearing as long as (1) Engineer A possesses the technical competence to serve as an engineering expert in the area in which Engineer A is testifying; (2) Engineer A testifies in an objective and truthful manner; and (3) Engineer A does not...
Case texts: National Society of Professional Engineers, Board of Ethical Review.

NOTE: The NSPE Board of Ethical Review considers ethical cases involving either real or hypothetical matters submitted to it from NSPE members, other engineers, public officials, and members of the public. The BER reviews each case in the context of the NSPE Code of Ethics and earlier BER opinions. The facts contained in each case do not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts submitted to or reviewed by the BER and shall not be considered a direct evaluation of any real matter that may have been submitted.

Each opinion is intended as guidance to individual practicing engineers, students, and the public. In regard to the question of application of the NSPE Code of Ethics to engineering organizations (e.g., corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, government agencies, and university engineering departments), the specific business form or type should not negate nor detract from the conformance of individuals to the Code. The NSPE Code deals with professional services, which must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures.

This opinion is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. It may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case and appropriate attribution is provided to the National Society of Professional Engineers' Board of Ethical Review.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3