3 ms·

1. This particular engineer worked legally as an engineer for DuPontt due to an industrial exception and was not required to license. There was no corner cut.

• brudgers 5y ago
  My understanding is the events that sparked the investigation were outside of the subject’s workplace/employment. Hence “retired.” The preponderance of precedent favors the board’s concerns and right to investigate. Being slightly familiar with North Carolina professional regulations, I suspect this holds true at the state level in particular. The legal argument is inconsistent. It claims that the regulations don’t apply because the regulations apply via the industrial exemption in the regulations…never mind the retired.
  • antiterra 5y ago
    The first point addressed the suggest that any engineer who didn’t get their license must be suspect and is cheating the rules. You seem to have missed the legal argument in the Oregon case which had nothing to do with an industrial exemption.
    • mcguire 5y ago
      "The first point addressed the suggest that any engineer who didn’t get their license and testified as an engineering expert witness must be suspect and is cheating the rules." Nutt became required to get a license when he began practicing engineering outside the "industrial exception".
      • antiterra 5y ago
        I guess we disagree that making an argument backed up with engineering while clearly not misrepresenting himself is ‘practicing engineering.’ That argument, however, is somewhat covered by the proceedings of the Oregon case.