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
[–] 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
    •