March/April 2019

PE Report
Oregon Court Case Spawns Attempt to Dismantle PE Licensure

A federal judge ruled in late December that an Oregon man was within his First Amendment rights when he referred to himself as an “engineer,” even though he was not licensed as a professional engineer. Free speech, however, was only half of the issue. The other overlooked half: The plaintiff wanted the court to completely invalidate the state’s licensing law that has regulated the practice of engineering since 1919.

This attempt to invalidate the licensing of engineers in Oregon, which was rejected by the judge, shows that threats to the licensing of engineers can come from many directions. But this shouldn’t be a surprise. His case was supported by the Institute for Justice—the same organization that has backed many of the challenges to licensing that threaten the practice of professional engineering.

The ruling on December 28 by US Magistrate Judge Stacie Beckerman stems from a case that began in 2016, when the Oregon Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying fined Mats Järlström $500 for referring to himself as an “engineer” in documents sent to the board and in media interviews. Järlström’s case began when he submitted a letter and calculations to the board, calling into question the timing of red-light cameras, after his wife received a ticket for a red-light violation. In the letter, Järlström, who earned an electrical engineering degree in his native Sweden, referred to himself as an “electronics engineer,” which the board said violated state law regarding use of the title “engineer.”

The judge determined that Järlström may study, communicate publicly about, and communicate privately about, his theories relating to traffic lights as long as his communications occur outside the context of an employment or contractual relationship relating to the timing of traffic lights with a governmental or other entity that changes or implements or has final approval to change or implement traffic-light timing without the review and acceptance of responsibility by an Oregon-licensed professional engineer. This ruling does not, in any way, weaken or change the fact that only PEs may engage in the professional practice of engineering in the state, nor that only licensed individuals may call themselves professional engineers or PEs. Engineers have been licensed in the US for over 100 years, but this case is a reminder that the profession should redouble its efforts to ensure the PE license continues its crucial role in protecting the public.