Case Repository

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer B to complain to Engineer A?
2. Were Engineer A’s actions in investigating City D’s contracting practices ethical?
3. Because City D’s Engineer refuses to change the contract arrangement with Firm Z, what steps must Engineer A take?

Conclusions:

1. It was not only ethical for Engineer B to complain to Engineer A, it was ethically required that Engineer B report his belief that statutory obligations were not being followed.
2. It was ethical for Engineer A to investigate City D’s contracting practices, both as a part of A’s own familiarization process and to follow up on Engineer B’s complaints.
3. Since the City D Engineer indicated they have no plans to change the contract arrangement with Firm Z, Engineer A is obligated to take appropriate action.

Questions:

1. Should Engineer M challenge the validity of Firm DBA’s report?
2. Should Engineer M raise any concerns with the City, as the client, and, if so, how?
3. Are Firm DBA’s actions ethical? Even though Firm DBA is not providing engineering services, are they required to abide by NSPE’s Code of Ethics?

Conclusions:

1. Engineer M should challenge the validity of Firm DBA’s report as Firm DBA did not abide by the Code in a number of instances.
2. Engineer M should first confer with Firm DBA to correct all discrepancies in the report. If no agreement can be made going forward, Engineer M should confer with the City to outline the ethical obligations. Engineer M should also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board.
3. The actions of Firm DBA are not ethical under the Code as the services provided were under the supervision and ownership of licensed professional engineers.

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer T and Engineer B to conclude an error had not been made in design?
2. Was it ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred?
3. Was it ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error during the deposition?

Conclusions:

1. It was ethical for Engineer T and Engineer B to conclude no error had been made in design, based on review and analysis of the facts from both from a legal/contractual perspective and from an ethical perspective. Engineer T’s design approach represented professional practice consistent with the standard of care.
2. It was ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred because there was no error. However, based on hindsight, other ways to approach the project may have prevented the accident and worker injury, and this was a missed opportunity to hold paramount the public safety, health, and welfare. Engineer T is encouraged to share this hard “lesson learned” as part of continued professional development.
3. It was ethical for Engineer T to refrain from acknowledging an error during the deposition because there was no error. Engineer T should respond clearly and honestly when questioned about the project, including views on alternative design approaches vis-à-vis the public safety, health, and welfare, but should not characterize the work as a design error.

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Cutting Edge Engineering and Engineer Jaylani to accept the irrigation system design task?
2. Was it ethical for Engineer Intern Wasser to refuse to perform the task of design development for the proposed irrigation system?
3. If the traditional lawn irrigation system design is an ethical expression of engineering work, what can Engineer Jaylani’s firm do to complete the...

Conclusions:

1. It was ethical for Engineer Jaylani to accept the irrigation system design task.
2. As a matter of personal conviction, it was ethically permissible, but extreme, for Engineer Intern Wasser to refuse the task of design development for the proposed irrigation system. Performing the design task would not have been manifestly unethical, and refusal likely cost Wasser his job.
3. Under the facts, traditional lawn irrigation system design is an ethical expression of engineering work. In awareness of sustainability principles, Engineer Jaylani’s firm is in a position to better serve its clients and the public by introducing and offering “green” irrigation alternatives.

Questions:

Is Engineer C’s answering of the City Administrator’s questions and his criticism of Engineer B ethical?

Conclusions:

In answering the City Administrator’s specific questions and by criticizing the work of Engineer B, Engineer C’s action were unethical.

Questions:

1. Are the proposal techniques of Engineer B ethical with respect to the NSPE Code of Ethics?
2. Does Engineer A have an obligation to report a violation to the Engineering Licensing Board in State Q? In State Z?

Conclusions:

1. The proposal practices of Engineer B and XYZ Engineers were not unethical from the perspective of the NSPE Code of Ethics.
2. Engineer A does not have an obligation to report Engineer B’s proposal/marketing practices to the engineering licensing board in State Q.
3. Engineer B’s proposal/marketing practices would constitute professional misconduct per licensure law in State Z, and Engineer A has a clear obligation to report to the engineering licensing board in State Z.

Questions:

1. Has Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations by raising concerns and providing public testimony?
2. Is it ethical for Engineer H to speak before the Drainage Board if Engineer H is not licensed in State I?
3. After R learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, does R have any additional responsibilities? Note that in the public record, H is...
4. ... and 1 more

Conclusions:

1. Engineer R fulfilled ethical obligations regarding environmental concerns at the site of the truck stop through public testimony. If R believes that there is a danger to public health, safety and welfare, R could choose to raise the concerns to a higher regulatory authority.
2. Engineer H’s testimony constituted the unlicensed practice of engineering and was consequently unethical. [However, practitioners should consult the governing statutes and regulations to determine the applicable definition of the practice of engineering.]
3. Engineer R has an obligation to report H’s unlicensed practice of engineering to State I authorities.
4. Engineer H did not act ethically by failing to address the potential for leaks in underground storage tanks during the presentation and questioning, whether by explaining how the issue had been addressed or by agreeing to re-examine the plans in light of the issue.

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B?
2. Were Engineer B’s actions ethical?
3. Were Engineer Intern C’s actions ethical?
4. ... and 2 more

Conclusions:

1. It was unethical for Engineer A to not report Engineer B, in spite of the fact that Engineer A and Engineer B were friends.
2. It was unethical for Engineer B to continue work in an impaired state in which he could not competently perform engineering design, could not guide and direct his subordinates, or properly review their designs or drawings.
3. Engineer Intern C’s complicity in helping Engineer B to continue work was unethical.
4. Engineer A was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board. As Engineer B’s friend and with Engineer B’s approval, once the matter was reported to the Board, it would have been permissible for Engineer A to help cooperatively identify a temporary practice management alternative that supported the professional and ethical practice of engineering work in Engineer B’s business, until Engineer B returned to full duty.
5. Given his direct knowledge of the situation, Engineer R, like Engineer A, was obligated to report Engineer B to the proper authority, in this case the State Board. If Engineer A did the reporting as noted above, Engineer A’s report could be styled to indicate Engineer R’s concurrence.

Questions:

1. Was it ethical for Engineer A to provide a recommendation on project delivery methods that only included two of the possible methods, without...
2. Was it ethical for Engineer A to recommend the method for which they could provide services?
3. Was it ethical for Engineer A to include project summaries and references to encourage selection of their firm for the recommended method for...

Conclusions:

1. It was unethical for Engineer A to leave out relevant and pertinent information from the analysis/ recommendation. Engineer A should have included evaluation of all available delivery methods rather than including only two, including one that A’s firm could provide. Engineer A could also have referred City Administrator to 3rd-party resources.
2. It was ethical for Engineer A to recommend progressive design build is the best choice, as long as reasons are objective, described, valid, and compared against all available and appropriate delivery methods. Unfortunately, Engineer A did not provide objective support for the recommendation. Consequently, Engineer A’s conduct was unethical.
3. It was not unethical to include marketing materials that display Engineer A’s firm’s qualifications.

Questions:

1. Would it be ethical for Engineer Intern D to revise the design so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project?
2. Would it be unethical for Engineer W to sign off on the design where the old water main is impacted by the DOT project?

Conclusions:

1. It would not be ethical for Engineer Intern D to accede to Engineer W’s veiled directive to revise the design so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project.
2. It would not be ethical for Engineer W to sign off on a design altered so that the old water main is impacted by the DOT project. Engineer W would not be acting as a faithful agent of the DOT.