576
Federal court decides in favor of retired engineer told by state to not talk about math in public (www.wect.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world
75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

He lost in state court because he signed an affidavit that said he hadn't referred to himself as a professional engineer when he didn't have a license, and the court found that he had done that and his federal lawsuit was dismissed about as soon as it was filed as not being significant enough to intervene in ongoing civil enforcement actions.

https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/ctapun/2023/OPa221099-041023.pdf
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2021cv01241/194678/20/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I mean the fact that he had a license accidentally let it lapse then was able to get it back doesn't change the fact that he was and is a professional engineer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Yes but during that period he didn't have a license.

    Without a doubt it's someone on a vendetta against him, but those regulations aren't weird, hidden ones.

    If you call yourself a professional engineer, that's a protected title and you must actually be a professional engineer. Part of being a professional engineer is paying dues to the organization in your area.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is not true. I can call myself a doctor a lawyer or a cop or anything like that and it is protected speech so long as I am not attempting to perform the professional duties of that job.

    It's free speech.

    It's not up to the board of engineers to arbitrarily decide what isn't isn't the professional duties of a job and then punish people who say things they don't like. It's statutorily defined and this activity was not.

    The courts made the entirely wrong decision which is very normal for the US.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is not true. I can call myself a doctor a lawyer or a cop or anything like that and it is protected speech so long as I am not attempting to perform the professional duties of that job

    It actually is true, unless MN has weird rules compared to other states. I'm not a lawyer, but the code here, sec. 326.02 seems pretty clear.

    or to use in connection with the person's name, or to otherwise assume, use or advertise any title or description tending to convey the impression that the person is an architect, professional engineer (hereinafter called engineer), land surveyor, landscape architect, professional geoscientist (hereinafter called geoscientist), or certified interior designer, unless such person is qualified by licensure or certification under sections 326.02 to 326.15.

    You actually can't call yourself a professional engineer if you're not - theres several lrgal cases where i am that are ongoing due to people calling themselves engineers while being realtors, for example, and trying to use the title to advertise (IE John Doe, P.Eng), which is not allowed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    United States v. Alvarez is the relevant case law here.

    There are tons of on-the-books statutes that are not in line with Alvarez. And we should presume they would fail in a full legal challenge if a full legal challenge to them were mounted. But not everyone has the resources or dedication to try and take something all the way to the totally-political, capricious SCOTUS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Interesting! Thanks for sharing that. I found a Cornell Law paper breaking down the decision and how/what things could have changed the decision (ie what things the govt is allowed to ban despite the amendment)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago*

    It's not the strongest decision, but I think it represents well how these identity claims intersect with free speech. That is, the law seems to tell us that a statement being false is not sufficient for it to be illegal per se.

    Now, had Marohn actually been reviewing engineering specs or analyzing plans or other clearly-engineering activities during the lapse while identifying himself as a PE, then of course that would be fraud even if it was inadvertent. But, of course, if that had happened he would've checked the box admitting to it on his renewal. Paid the fine. Accepted whatever censure it resulted in. That's honestly a pretty routine licensure error. It's why the form specifically asks about it.

    But failing to update his letterhead in political speeches made during a totally accidental lapse that was corrected in due haste and before he was even aware there were complaints does not make him a fraudster. You could claim that being a PE is what made people want him to deliver those speeches, but that's pretty flimsy -- first of all he WAS fully-trained, educated, and qualified as a PE. Not to mention he's the founder of a major advocacy organization and would certainly still be giving those speeches even if he intentionally stopped renewing the license, and would be legally in the right to do so (but yes, should change the "PE" on the letterhead to "former PE" or no claim at all).

    And it means that the board are fucking liars for claiming otherwise.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    That's not how we use language. If he took a vacation in another state, called himself a professional engineer, never went home and joined the new states engineering org, he wouldn't be wrong calling himself PEng before he joined the new org.

    A retired doctor is still a doctor if somebody needs one on a plane.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    When it comes to titles like this that are considered protected, it is actually how they work.

    In your example, he isn't allowed to use that title in the new state until he's joined their organization (or they have an agreement with his original state)

    As an extreme example for why the timing does matter, If he was licensed properly for 1 year, then let it lapse but continued to do design work as an engineer for 25 years, and then relicensed himself for one last year before retiring, the work he did during that period of being unlicensed isn't covered, and the board of engineers would go after him for that.

    For what it's worth, there are specific provisions in the laws to allow retired people to continue using the title P.Eng with a "Retired" tag added onto it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Just read the opinion. He was allowed to practice engineering under an exception and never joined the org.

    Then he started critiquing work, and opposing council tried to negate his analysis by saying, hey you can't practice engineering.

    So the title isn't that protected, but various people tried to make it seem like it would be, and a greater court decided that infringes his rights.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You're looking at the original article. This whole series of comments has been spawned off a discussion about a different case, in which the person did join the organization, then let his license lapse.

    In the original, I agree. He never required a license because of their own regs( though it appears that also means he couldn't call himself a professional engineer, so the title itself is protected, he was just exempt from needing the license to do the industrial work he was doing). He is then totally within his rights to use that knowledge and pass himself off as a subject matter expert in the same field he worked for X years, and the board just got pissy. Glad it was overturned for him.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No he signed an affidavit which said he had not acted as a professional engineer during the time it was lapsed which was true. Because he hadn't done any engineering work.

    The entire "representation" was just a title on a single slide of a PowerPoint presentation.

    He lost in state court because the MBoE lied about the order of events and decided to "make an example" out of him. And the reason they decided to do that was 100% because they didn't like the content of his political speech.

    And that's the point. These organizations will use and abuse their power to punish dissent. Period.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    The argument wasn't about a matter of fact, but a matter of law. He didn't argue against their matter of fact per the appeals court decision.

    The ALJ heard arguments from both parties on their motions for summary
    disposition. Marohn argued to the ALJ that the relevant statutes and regulations prevented
    him from referring to himself as a professional engineer only while promoting or providing
    engineering services. He also asserted that his conduct was protected by the First
    Amendment. The complaint committee’s position was that Marohn had violated applicable
    statutes and regulations by representing himself as a professional engineer during the time
    his license was expired and by providing false information on his license applications. The
    ALJ rejected Marohn’s statutory- and regulatory-interpretation arguments, declined to
    consider Marohn’s constitutional arguments, and found that Marohn had violated Minn.
    Stat. § 326.02, subds. 1, 3, by representing himself as a professional engineer while
    unlicensed and Minn. R. 1805.0200, subps. 1(B), 2, 4(C), based on his statements in his
    license applications. The ALJ therefore recommended summary disposition in favor of the
    complaint committee.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    That's because the appeals process does not allow disputes over matters of fact. The lower court he did dispute the matter of fact. And multiple times offered to pay the fine and accept censure for the error if the factual recorded were amended to comport with what actually happened rather than being recorded in false terms as it was. But the MBoE wanted to defame him in the public record. It was their primary goal. So they refused to do so and kept the record fraudulent.

    But the outcome was ALSO wrong as a matter of law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    It was a summary judgement in the lower court because there was no dispute in fact in the lower court. If there was a dispute in fact there would've been a trial. I agree that this was malicious, but I'm a registered nurse so I also have a protected title with similar ramifications to professional engineer and with similar restrictions on license renewal. Essentially if I did not have an active license, it would be illegal by my state law/BON regulations to tell you that I was a registered nurse in this comment. If I instead said "engineer" or "nurse", the courts will generally find that within free speech, like in Jarlstrom. I don't particularly think the courts were wrong here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Again, the matters of fact were established by the board and could not be disputed, which is why during appeals they had to shift to matters of law.

    It is provable fact that he disputed the matters of fact multiple times in both formal letters and sworn statements made during the hearings prior to the appeal. The Board of Licensure had sole discretion to update the matters of fact. The process was totally broken in a way that made it nearly impossible for him to defend himself.

    And, just to really make the point of the injustice of this, had he instead checked the box on his renewal that said he had practiced engineering during the lapse, the result would've been a fine and reprimand for the error. The reason he didn't check the box saying he had practiced engineering during the lapse is because he believed in good faith that he had not. Instead, the board seized the opportunity to punish a political enemy by creating a fraudulent factual record to call him a liar when no such thing happened.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Not really what was said based on my reading of the court documents. They said he checked a box that he didn't present himself as a professional engineer, when he published articles that said he was. And based on other internet discussions with links to articles, that was exactly what happened and he doesn't really deny that.

    The matter of law is "is it right to prosecute someone based on this form" and the appeals court decided it was as you could see in the decision.

    Overall I find the court documents seem pretty comprehensive as to why and how it all went down, and they describe him refusing to sign things based on his belief that he wasn't lying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    The 'articles' I'm aware of claiming the PE were published/written before or after the lapse, as I understand it. But the factual record was generated prejudicially to imply otherwise because the objective of the board was to defame him. The prejudicial record is what is now in the court documents because that was what the board intended. Chuck's written and interviewed all over the place on the subject.

    There WAS an example of Chuck being identified as a PE during the lapse. It was a name card in a PowerPoint presentation for a political speech. A presentation that was prepared when he was a PE and simply not updated when the license lapsed. Of course it wasn't, he didn't realize it had lapsed because the notice of the lapse was sent to the wrong address (an error that was his fault, but by no means fraud or a lie, ESPECIALLY since he was NOT doing any of the work of a professional engineer and therefore saying he was 'presenting himself as an engineer' is dishonest). Again and hopefully for the last time I will say: failing to update a letterhead cannot possibly be the same thing as lying absent any other misconduct, ESPECIALLY when the failure was entirely accidental. I believe this is also where the claims of articles comes from -- his bio on the website was not updated to reflect the lapse, so anyone clicking through to his about page would see him ID'd as a PE.

    If they had just fined him as usual for this kind of error, that would've been annoying but would be no story. If they had fined and reprimanded him, it would've showed their naked political goals as well -- and I'd still object to that -- but it still would be whatever. But they used the board's power to defame him in the permanent public record, in a situation where he had basically no recourse. That is the story of why this situation was so incredibly unjust.

    You're repeatedly referring the the factual record established by the board. The very record I have told you over and over and over again is false. It's falsity is the entire reason this situation is so infuriating and unjust. You keep going back to it over and over again. Every time I tell you it is a false record and that the lies in it ARE the story, you point at the same false record and say "but see, it says something different!" I've said over and over again why it is different and what the proper facts should've been, and you keep pointing at the same fraudulent public record and telling me "that's not what this says!" This is totally infuriating for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent