Employment of Former Convicted Engineer - Case No. 78-2
Facts:
John Smith, a registered engineer at the time involved, was
head of a state agency which administered a large public works
program. He and James Jones, his assistant, also a registered
engineer, were charged with establishing dummy agencies within
the state to receive funds from the program. Those funds were
channeled into the personal accounts of Smith and Jones. Smith
and his colleague were fined and convicted of fraud and
embezzlement and sentenced to prison terms. Subsequently, the
state registration board revoked the licenses of Smith and
Jones while serving the last several months of his prison term.
Smith has been found qualified for a work-release program under
state law whereby he is permitted to work during the day.
returning to prison each night.
The XYZ Engineering Firm, located in the area of the prison
where Smith is serving his term, proposes to hire Smith as a
technician. Smith will not be in responsible charge of
engineering or sign or seal engineering documents.
Question:
Is it ethical for the engineering principals of the XYZ firm
to hire Smith under the condition stated?
Reference:
Code of Ethics Section 13 "The Engineer will not associate
with, or allow the use of his name by an enterprise of
questionable character, nor will he become professionally
associated with engineers who do not conform to ethical
practices, or with persons not legally qualified to render the
professional services for which the association is
intended."
Discussion:
In Case 75-3, we considered a case in which an engineer had
been reprimanded for violating the Code of Ethics, and
subsequently another engineer proposed to engage in a joint
venture with that engineer. In discussing that issue under 13,
involving a less serious breach than is present in this case,
we observed we are now confronted with the second portion of
13, which on the face of the language would appear to
absolutely rule out an association with any engineer who has
violated the Code of Ethics. However, we do not believe that
such a harsh and unyielding interpretation of the language is
required and justified in all circumstances. One semantic
problem to be first resolved is whether the words who do not
conform to ethical practices were intended to mean that an
engineer found guilty of one violation of the code, no matter
of what degree of severity, should be read out of the
profession or considered an unethical engineer for all time to
the extent that ethical engineers must shun him forever. Such a
reading would be contrary to the spirit of our laws and
traditions that redemption is a cherished virtue and that a
person found to have violated the mores of society should go
forth and sin no more. Even the hardened criminal under our
moral concepts may be accepted back into society as a useful
citizen after he has paid the penalty for his transgressions.
We believe that a proper reading of the language on this point
should be construed to mean that an ethical engineer will not
associate with an engineer who is known to habitually violate
the code and who has shown no evidence of avoiding such
unethical conduct as he may have engaged in previously after he
has been duly brought to book for his past action. In that case
our resolution was that the two engineers might ethically
engage in a joint venture on the condition that the future
conduct of the reprimanded engineer be closely observed by the
other engineer to assure that further unethical conduct will
not develop during the joint venture. The case before us is
quite different, of course, in that there is no question of
association of two engineers in the context of joint activities
as principals or firms. Rather, the question could be put in
this case in the form of whether an engineer, once convicted of
a crime, should forever be barred from employment related to
engineering by a reputable or ethical engineering firm. There
might be little question of the application of 13 if the
question is whether Smith is to be employed in a capacity which
would require a license as defined in the state registration
law. That is not possible, of course, under the circumstances
because Smith's license to practice engineering has been
revoked. And we need not consider at this time what the result
might be in this regard if his license should ever be restored,
as is possible under at least some of the state registration
laws. It is not necessary or desirable to interpret the
"association" aspect of 13 to mean that an ethical engineer or
firm may not employ a person convicted of a felony in
employment related to engineering. Any other conclusion under
the circumstances of this case would offend the generally
accepted social philosophy of redemption and be a disservice to
the purpose of the state legislature in establishing a work
release program to help those who have violated its laws to
gain orderly return to society on a self-supporting basis. The
principals of the XYZ firm may indeed suffer some loss of their
prospects of practice by those who take a harsh, unforgiving
attitude. For this willingness to help return one who has
strayed from the standards of society they should be commended
for applying the true spirit of ethical behavior.
Conclusion:
It is ethical for the engineering principals of the XYZ firm
to hire Smith under the conditions stated.
Note: This opinion is based on data submitted to the Board
of Ethical Review and does not necessarily represent all of the
pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This opinion
is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as
expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific individuals.
This opinion may be reprinted without further permission,
provided that this statement is included before or after the
text of the case.
Board of Ethical Review:
William J Deevy, P E.; Robert R. Evans, P. E.: James G
Johnstone, P. E. . Robert H. Perrine, P.E.; Donald C. Peters,
P.E.; James F. Shivler, Jr., P.E.; L.W. Sprandel, P.E.,
chairman.
1996 NSPE Code of Ethics
This is the version of the code archived in the OEC. An earlier
version may have been used in this case.