In 2017, Mats Järlström, a Beaverton, Oregon resident, was fined $500 by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying for both labeling himself as an “engineer” and for publicly offering an opinion regarding the timing of Beaverton’s traffic lights. Järlström holds a Bachelor of Science in engineering from his home country Sweden, but he is not licensed as a professional engineer in the state of Oregon. He contested that Beaverton’s timing of yellow traffic lights was too short and a safety hazard. His interest stemmed from a red light ticket his wife received; Järlström spent three years analyzing the method for calculating the duration of a yellow light. He found that the formula failed to account for drivers who must slow down to make a legal turn.
First, he submitted his analysis to Beaverton City Council, but after they rebuffed him, Järlström filed a civil rights case that challenged the legality of the City of Beaverton’s yellow light intervals as being too short to comply with the Oregon Vehicle Code. Järlström also reached out to the Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying for help. But, instead of helping Järlström, the board fined him $500. Citing state laws that make it illegal to practice engineering without a license, the Board told Järlström that his use of the phrase “I am an engineer” in his letter to the Board was enough to “create a violation.”1 Additionally, the Board found that Järlström’s research into traffic lights and their effectiveness amounted to practicing engineering without a license. In this sense, the board ruled that a non-engineer could not even state an opinion in public on engineering matters if not licensed as an engineer.
Järlström argued that it was unconstitutional to prevent someone from doing math without the government’s permission. In a video for the Institute of Justice, Järlström stated, “Anyone should be able to talk about the traffic signals if they’re too long or too short or anything without being penalized.”2 Backed by a lawyer from the National Institute for Justice, Järlström sued. However, his lawsuit did not seek any monetary damages. Instead, he only sought a judicial order that told the state board to stop violating the free speech rights of Oregonians.
“Criticizing the government’s engineering isn’t a crime; it’s a constitutional right,” said Sam Gedge, an attorney at the Institute for Justice. “Under the First Amendment, you don’t need to be a licensed lawyer to write an article critical of a Supreme Court decision, you don’t need to be a licensed landscape architect to create a gardening blog, and you don’t need to be a licensed engineer to talk about traffic lights.”3 Järlström argued that the state law should be restricted to only regulating engineering communications that are made as part of paid employment or a contractual agreement. As Mr. Järlström’s case did not involve any commercial pursuits, advertising, or other money-making efforts, he accused the board members of interfering with free speech.
After an extensive legal battle, a federal magistrate judge declared that certain parts of state law and its administrative rules that govern engineering practices in Oregon violate the First Amendment. The court further declared that Järlström “may study, communicate publicly about, and communicate privately about, his theories relating to traffic lights as long as Järlström’s 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.”4
Further, U.S. Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman wrote in her 25-page ruling, “Unlike ‘M.D.’ or ‘certified public accountant,’ there is no fixed meaning to the title, ‘engineer […]’ Courts have long recognized that the term ‘engineer’ has a generic meaning, separate from ‘professional engineer,’ and that the term has enjoyed ‘widespread usage in job titles in our society to describe positions which require no professional training.”5
So can an engineering board regulate free speech? For now, the answer is no. The decision in Mats Järlström’s case revealed that the board cannot regulate free speech in the case of someone who is not receiving money or advertising services. Despite not holding an engineering license, Mats Järlström is free to comment on and analyze engineering-related issues and his analysis and any conversation thereafter is protected under the First Amendment.
1 Boehm, Eric. “After Challenging Red Light Cameras, Oregon Man Fined $500 for Practicing Engineering Without a License.” Reason, 26 Apr. 2017.
2 Boehm, Eric. “After Challenging Red Light Cameras, Oregon Man Fined $500 for Practicing Engineering Without a License.” Reason, 26 Apr. 2017.
3 Ibid
4 Pretz, Kathy. “U.S. Judge Rules Mats Järlström’s First Amendment Rights Were Infringed.” IEEE Spectrum, 19 Jan. 2019.
5 Berenstein, Maxine. “Federal Judge Finds State Law Governing Who Is an ‘Engineer’ Violates Free Speech.” The Oregonian, 29 Dec. 2018.
Do you have any comments on this interesting subject? Add them in the comments section below.
1431 Graham Drive, Suite 265
support@noonpi.com
First, I believe the decision by the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying to penalize Mr. Mats is inappropriate. Mr. Mats refers to himself as an ‘engineer,’ not a ‘licensed professional engineer’ or ‘PE.’ The term ‘engineer’ is general and widely used, so it is unclear why the board should restrict its usage. Second, every individual has the right to free speech, including discussing public matters, whether they are technically correct or not. If the board believes Mr. Mats’ statements are inaccurate, it would be more appropriate to clarify this publicly rather than restrict or penalize his expression.”
I totally agree with the courts ruling. Mr. Jarlstrom did not represent himself as a professional engineer. He was voicing his opinion as a citizen who happens to be well schooled in mathematics. I know a number of degreed and non degrees individuals who provide relevant input on technical issues that I as a professional engineer truly appreciate. Appears the Board in this case may have been politically forced to take this action.
Analyzing IS, within our Core Of Values
First of all, I am a PE. I am also in full agreement the First Amendment takes precedence over a state agency limiting free speech. I have had on a couple of occasions, appeared before a Zoning Board meeting presenting an argument based on codes and regulations normally presented by Architects and Land Surveyors. I made my arguments as a private citizen, not a professional engineer. Had I have been governed by the same regulations in question here, I would not have been allowed to speak.
This ruling is 100% correct with respect to his review and comments about the traffic signal timing. As for the use of the word “engineer”, without the exact context in which he used that word, it is difficult to give an opinion on that. If he said “I’m an engineer in my country of origin, but not licensed in the state of Oregon” then I’m sure he wouldn’t have gotten fined in the first place. He must not have done that, so he may have been walking a very thin line there. To claim to be an engineer when referencing professional engineering topics could infer the word “professional” without saying it. That’s like saying “I’m a doctor” when there’s a medical emergency but having a doctorate in art history. The statement may be true, but it’s misleading. I think the Board was trying to punish him for daring to voice an opinion that defied a professional engineer’s signed and sealed calculations. The fact is, any member of the public should be able to reference engineering manuals to check an issue they deem unsafe or incorrect, and report that to the local authorities in charge if they think they’ve found an error. As engineers, the safety and welfare of the public is paramount, even if it means admitting that Joe Public found an error in a professional’s work. We should welcome any feedback that can help save lives. Then that feedback can be evaluated by a true professional to see if there may be a way to make things better, or if there might be other reasons why the professional that signed and sealed the plans made a judgement call to do something a little differently in that particular situation.
The guy had an engineering degree. I think that makes him an, “engineer”, right? Or, do they think he have said, “I have an engineering degree”? He really didn’t make any claims of expertise, but they lorded it over him anyway. Can’t they find something else to do? Agree, take a look at what he said and decide what is right. Then thank him for his donated work.
The irony here is that Mr. Järlström was acting in a manner that was indirectly “holding public safety paramount”. It could be argued that making calculations to determine the proper yellow light timing benefits the public by reducing drastic vehicle speed changes at intersections, thus reducing the number of collisions. Thank you Mr. Järlström.
If the Board is that tight on specifics, Mats didn’t identify himself as a practicing licensed engineer, just as an engineer, a term that as long as it doesn’t involve offering services to the public can’t stand up as a violation of the statute, even in Oregon. Specifically, he wasn’t charging a fee for services or doing pro bono work under an agreement with a client, he was critiquing the city’s ineptitude at traffic control, something that happens on a daily basis in 50 states, if it’s a criminal act, the Oregon Board needs to go after about a third of the driving public, or at least the ones who can use a calculator. It would be interesting to see which board members actually voted to cite Mats. The voting Board membership is not entirely made up of PE’s, that in itself is more worrisome than intelligent criticism of traffic engineering schemes from the public.
States typically regulate PEs to make them personally liable for the safety of their clients and the public with respect to the PE’s designs, professional opinions and statements. People with engineering degrees or just the word “engineer” in their job title don’t carry the same stature, responsibility or personal liability with respect to state laws.. The definition of the word “engineer” and the legal distinctions between engineers and PEs vary from state to state, so to some degree, the subject issue depends on the state.
In the states where I am registered, the title “Engineer” is legally reserved for individuals who hold a professional license. As someone who frequently speaks in public forums on community issues, I refrain from referring to myself as an engineer unless I am providing an opinion in an official professional capacity. While I often address technical matters in fields outside my direct practice, my knowledge allows me to make informed contributions. However, I consciously avoid the title of engineer in these contexts, as it may suggest that I am representing myself as a licensed professional.
Had he simply stated that he has studied engineering and possesses a relevant background—despite not being a licensed professional engineer—it would have clarified his position appropriately. The assertion that the board infringed on his freedom of speech is misguided. Rather, the board’s actions were aimed at protecting the public from unlicensed individuals misrepresenting themselves as engineers. It is also worth noting that, unlike some other states, Oregon may not impose restrictions on the use of the title in the same manner.
A few thoughts:
1. There are precedents that have been long established that the term “professional engineer” is protected, and “engineer” is not. I’m not sure why the board decided to weigh in so heavily on this one. I imagine they took that track that because he said “I am an engineer” and rendered an opinion on an engineering matter in which he performed engineering calculations. Thus, they would say he had crossed a line (looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, so it is a duck). The problem for them is that he was not doing this professionally, which, as the court noted, puts it into another light. However, I suspect that if a person with an MD from some third world country wrote the AMA and said, “I am a doctor, I did some tests, and this is why this drug is bad for people”, they might react the same way. It’s different than just saying “I’m the doctor of love” or “I’m a sanitation engineer.” It’s trying to use a title to influence people. One might ask the question, why did he feel compelled to say he was an engineer if he was not trying to influence people because of credentials he does not legally possess in the US? He could have talked about his calculations and thoughts with no issue all day long. He used the word engineer, because he wanted to use the title to influence people with that title. That is what the board should be trying to limit.
2. The board can, and should, control the speech of professional engineers. Just as the 1st amendment does not allow for screaming fire in a theater, PEs should not be allowed to speak without consequences. So, in that way, our speech is controlled as part of the condition of being a PE. That is why one should not put PE after their name except when acting as a PE. If I write a contract, I am an officer of a company, but not PE. If I write a letter to the editor or make a comment on a blog post, I should do so as an individual, not as a PE unless I sure I have met the requirements of “rendering and engineering opinion”. It’s also in the ASCE and NSPE ethics cannons if my memory serves me right.
3. The unasked question in the case as presented is, what happens if the line is blurred between real engineering and someone just saying they know what they are doing? Isn’t that the major issue with what today masquerades as journalism? In a decade or so we have gone from media being a trusted resource to it being untrusted and people believing what anyone posts on Facebook (if it is to their liking). Could that happen with engineering if anyone can say “I’m an engineer and this is what I think”? It would seem to me that the problem in both of these cases is that there is no penalty for bad behavior. If the media gets it wrong, there are liable and slander laws. If a PE gets it wrong, there is discipline by the board up to and including loss of the ability to call oneself a professional engineer. If Karen gets it wrong on Facebook, nothing happens, and the falsehood is out there for anyone to see.
That board was blatantly wrong. If Mr. Matz has a valid BS in Engineering from an accredited university and works or worked as an Engineer, he is an Engineer. One does not need to have a United States based university degree to practice Engineering in this country.
Half of the working Engineers in this country do not possess a PE license. They practice Engineering under the direct supervision of a PE. They make and sign calculations and drawings. The only thing they can’t do is seal the calculations and drawings which requires a PE license.
The term “engineer” is for example widely used to refer to pilots of trains. Although they need training to safely piloting trains, they do not need a state registration as a professional engineer and do not even need an engineering degree. The reason for the existence of Professional Engineering Boards is to protect the public from bad service. Therefore they examine engineers for having the proper expertise, experience and character and allow registered professional engineers to use their signatures and seals to prove that they are registered professional engineers with regard to documented opinions and designs. The public is protected from bad service by explicitly asking for proof from the engineer of being a registered professional engineer. Mr. Jaerlstroem was never asked for his seal and signature and he never provided fake ones. He correctly claimed being an engineer, not claiming he was a registered professional engineer in the state of Oregon. The Board of Professional Engineers, in my opinion, therefore acted beyond their mission and duty.
I am conflicted on this case.
I am an P.E. in Oregon.
I believe that the OSBEELS (Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying) has the right to regulate engineering.
I believe that Mr. Järlström has something important to add to the discussion. We need to be able to hear everything that might be important.
I believe that he misrepresented himself as an engineer, which he is not.
I wish the Board had discussed this issue with him before going after him. (Note: I do not think this would have mattered; I came to this belief in reviewing sources discussing this case.)
I believe the court errored.
I asked the Board to talk about this decision and what it means to the folks in Oregon. They have declined. I am disappointed.
I am in favor of requiring licensing for more engineers (there are plenty of unnecessary exemptions) and for requiring that engineering professors have P.E.s.