Oregon engineer wins freedom of speech lawsuit against 'overzealous' Board of Engineers

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 4,152   +1,416
Staff member
In context: About a year and a half ago we reported on a man in Oregon who was fined for describing himself as an engineer in an opinion submitted to the Oregon State Board of Engineers regarding the timing of traffic signals in Beaverton.

In 2017, Mats Järlström was fined $500 by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying for using the word “engineer” to describe himself. The board also forbade him from publicly talking about engineering subject matter. Järlström filed a civil rights lawsuit claiming the board was infringing on his First Amendment right to free speech.

Järlström, who has a background in engineering but was not licensed or practicing the profession, had submitted a detailed opinion including maths about why the timing of traffic lights in Beaverton was a safety hazard and needed to be updated. Many were interested in his study including licensed public safety engineers.

After being slapped with a bureaucratic gag order and fine, Järlström took the board to court. The US District Court for Oregon sided with the retired engineer and entered a permanent injunction allowing Järlström to speak about his engineering theories freely and to call himself an engineer.

Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman stated in her December 28, 2018, ruling that the board has a “history of overzealous enforcement actions” and called its restrictions on the use of the word engineer “substantially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.”

“Last week’s ruling announces important protections, not just for Mats’s First Amendment rights, but for the First Amendment rights of thousands of engineers in Oregon,” said Järlström’s attorney Sam Gedge with the Institute for Justice (IJ). “Not only is Mats free to continue to share his theories, but thousands of Oregon engineers are now free to describe themselves—truthfully—as ‘engineers,’ without fear of government punishment. For years, Oregon’s engineering board has operated as if the First Amendment didn’t apply to it. As the court’s ruling confirms, that could not be more wrong.”

The judgment invalidates an Oregon statute that claimed only Oregon-licensed engineers could describe themselves as such. The IJ told TechSpot in an email that the Oregon Board of Engineers almost religiously enforced the law. The board was known to target anyone who used the word publicly regardless of context.

“In candid moments, the board even asserted that they could punish the hundreds of Intel employees who call themselves 'engineers' without having a board-issued license,” said a spokesperson for IJ.

Regarding the decision, Järlström said that the win was not just about him.

"Oregonians need to be free to share ideas and free to say who they are," he said. "Being an engineer is a big part of my identity, as it is for many people. Thousands of Oregonians are 'engineers'—even though we have no reason to be licensed as 'professional engineers'—and we are now free to use the word 'engineer' to describe ourselves."

Permalink to story.

 
The term engineer existing long before professional boards of registration started passing out papers for those that could navigate a test. I have functioned for 40 years as an engineer with the only difference is that I cannot certify designs (with a stamp). The infamous German Engineers rarely had such a certification and look what they accomplished up to and through the second world war. Todays registration systems are merely another means of the state collecting a fee. Not saying there are not a lot of well qualified PE's out there but let's not think they are the only ones capable of engineering. My favorite reply to the more snotty engineers who say "do you have a registration"? I say "no, but I've got 6 patents, how many do you have"? Rarely do I receive a reply ..... go figure.
 
We run into the exact same overbearing fascism up here with the word "architect", which I will now freely use and away any case the State wishes to lose against me with this as a precedent. I do architectural design and CGI but have never claimed to BE an architect - despite doing the exact same job that licenses architects do and acquiring the exact same permits they get from the various cities and counties, on anything that doesn't need an engineering stamp.

This is great legal news for those of us that work hard at our professions and use our skills, to NOT be penalized by mere nomenclature. Now if I did an unsafe design that didn't meet or exceed code, sure that could be a reason for legal action or injunction, or instead they could simply not issue me the permit and/or flag the job site - which is how it already works.

Good for this guy!
 
A prime example of using process law to bilk people out of their money with the advantaged position of holding a seat of office. Not much different than the abuse of civil forfeiture law.
 
This engineer guy must have some background in HVAC...His traffic graph looks a lot like a Psychometric Chart!
 
The term engineer existing long before professional boards of registration started passing out papers for those that could navigate a test. I have functioned for 40 years as an engineer with the only difference is that I cannot certify designs (with a stamp). The infamous German Engineers rarely had such a certification and look what they accomplished up to and through the second world war. Todays registration systems are merely another means of the state collecting a fee. Not saying there are not a lot of well qualified PE's out there but let's not think they are the only ones capable of engineering. My favorite reply to the more snotty engineers who say "do you have a registration"? I say "no, but I've got 6 patents, how many do you have"? Rarely do I receive a reply ..... go figure.

The wonderful thing about state boards of engineers? They're private institutions, contracted by the state to certify who can practice engineering. The state never sees a dime of the money collected by the boards.

In theory, anyone working for a company as an engineer should be covered by that company's license to perform engineering work (which doesn't come from the board, instead from the state, since it has more to do with the way the company is legally structured), and the state boards only factor into the equation where you are performing work independently or are certifying designs for civil engineering projects.

In practice, a lot of these board are on a power trip. Unfortunately, I believe this 'taking power from the board' in such a broad manner is a bad thing. We make our lawyers and doctors get licensed for a reason, we make our engineers get licensed for the same reason. Is this board power tripping? Yes. Should they remove the limits on who can and cannot call themselves an "engineer"? Absolutely not.

Mr. Järlström was an engineer in his home country, the boards should recognize this on some level. He provided his study free-of-charge to a panel that was able to independently verify his work, the state engineering boards should recognize this. Mr. Järlström didn't open up some engineering shop to start designing bridges or medical devices, claiming to be certified by the state to do so, he simply pointed out that the traffic lights were timed wrong and provided the math to prove his hypothesis.
 
Back