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.
Normally, reading this, I’d think that the legal decision that was rendered would be a no-brainer. But regard for the First Amendment has degraded so much, that reading this, I wasn’t sure which way it would come down.
I support the decision of the Federal Judge in this case. The Oregon engineering board overreached in their decision to issue a fine.
The court got it right. The Oregon engineering board over stepped its bounds of legitimate authority. An admonishment to abstain from using the title “engineer” with no fine or penalty would have been appropriate. It is ridiculous to expect people that are not professional engineers to be familiar with board rules and regulations concerning a job title. What’s next? Fining the engineers that drive trains?
I agree with Mr. Jarlstrom – and maybe just maybe he will receive more positive feedback from traffic engineers in the future – and the board will not act so hastily – he had a point about the traffic signal and performed calculations with no harm to anyone – professional traffic engineers could have potentially reviewed and commented and possibly professionally acted within professional guidelines to correct the traffic issue or not – in some of our Work our professional engineering roles sometimes require public interaction – we need to successful there as well
I agree with Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman. My personal opinion is that if a person has an engineering degree he/she can call himself/herself “an engineer” all day long. There is a difference between the term “engineer” and the title “Professional Engineer” (or PE). With the PE license you can sign & seal documents legally in the jurisdiction you are licensed in. Throughout my career I have seen unlicensed engineers that are outstanding engineers and some licensed engineers that I haven’t been too impressed with. Personally I don’t feel that my knowledge increased just because I became a PE. so I don’t judge or trust an engineer based on license alone.
I agree 100% with the ruling. I also think it is within his right to use the phrase “I am an Engineer” as long as he graduated from an accredited Engineering University with a BS, MS or PhD in Engineering. Had he used the term “I am a Professional Engineer” then it’s quite different.
If Järlström did not use the title or claim himself as Professional Engineer, the P.E. board must not fine him. The Board may explicitly define the word/title “engineer” that has well specified description of who is a P.E.
These actions do not surprise me in the least. How about the toy train shop that was fined for using the word “Engineer” in their company name. I’ve been a PE since 21 August 1989 and practice engineering since 1979. I have also help numerous engineers obtain a PE and been an instructor in classes for the same. But many if not most of the state boards carry there duties too far. I have seen many many instances where ( I hate to say this) incompetent engineering boards have made the most outrageous and absurd rulings. Like the one mentioned above. Once a bureaucracy begins to believes that it is all important and no one questions their authority, they tend to attract personnel that have a need to impress rather than perform. This is a sad comment but I find it to be true. I fully support engineering registration and the process as it does provide a level of confidence and consistency. Continuing education is essential to innovation, the economy, and progress.
If the definition of an engineer is “a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or public works” (Oxford Languages and Google), then formal training or licensure is not required to use the word engineer as a description of ones abilities. Professional engineer is by statute however a designation that indicates a certain level of training and experience so that the public can have confidence in the skills of the practitioners of design and public comment. The license board did overstep their bounds in attempting to suppress the legitimate public comments of a citizen who it appears was trying to make a valid point about an inconsistency between design and public law. As a professional engineer myself, I am not jealous of the use of engineer in non professional titles, since by appending PE after my name on documents and or correspondence I can make it clear that I do have the experience and training as judged by me peers to speak with some certainty on matters of design and policy relating to my fields of expertise. The overzealous protection of the word does nothing to protect the public, better use of the efforts of the board would to educate the public about who and what Professional Engineers are.
Based solely on the content of this article, the court’s findings seem to be correct. I don’t think the state board or anyone else can prohibit someone from studying and publicly discussing timing of traffic signals, as long as they don’t represent their opinion as professional engineering.
The question is whether or not someone can publicly represent themselves to be an “engineer”. Since, as the article says, there is no clear definition of “engineer” and there is no legal prohibition of calling oneself an engineer, I don’t think Mr. Järlström committed any offense. Had he referred to himself as a “Professional Engineer”, that would be a different matter.
Judge surely made correct decision. However effort and time required of numerous parties to fight such ridiculous position of Board of Engineers is travesty. This judge also rendered useful decision on practical definition for “practice of engineering” which occurs in many different contexts.
As just one example………….for many years, architects have been “delegating” structural design to component suppliers………..using pretext that these suppliers are providing “shop drawings”………which is completely bogus. In fact, employees of these suppliers have been performing engineering design………without being licensed as PE. This Oregon decision highlights violation of PE regulations for such practice.
I am a registered engineer and surveyor in Ohio. My opinion is that a person can be an engineer or surveyor by training, education or past registration. As long as he or she does not participate in commerce as an engineer or surveyor, I do not perceive any violation of the registration laws.
In fact, there may be situations where a person is required by the ethics of being an engineer or surveyor to speak up to correct a dangerous situation. Something I think we overlook in our eagerness to control the marketplace.
What the Oregon State Board did is outrageous. The Board should be required to compensate Jarlstrom for the time and expense he incurred in having to go through the courts to prove what should have been obvious and well known to the Board members. This makes you wonder about the competence of the Oregon State Board. The Beaverton Council should have been grateful to Jarlstrom for providing a well reasoned and thorough analysis of their traffic light timing and then taken steps to make the appropriate adjustment if their own independent analysis showed him to be correct. Instead they showed themselves to be belligerent bureaucrats.
What really happened is that these hacks got their collective panties in a wad because someone outside the cozy club showed them up for being money grubbing gov’t parasites as the yellow light intervals were too short, and thus would result in more traffic fines being issued.
In the NY Metropolitan Tri-States area you can be an engineer if you have a certified Bachler degree in engineering, even from a different country, and you can be employed by an engineering company and have a commensurate salary without being a Licensed engineer in the corresponding state. What you can not do is to sign engineering projects. So why another state of USA may have such a non-sense rule?
The fact that the title engineer is not regulated is the fault of the various professional societies for not fixing this in the state statues. Many other vocations like to use the title, from train drivers, people who operate boilers (stationary engineers_, people who setup IT systems (MS engineer). The public is thoroughly confused and it is fraught with danger. I am not familiar with Sweden, but in the UK you have to be a Chartered Engineer to practice publicly, and in Germany I believe you have to be a Diplom Engineer. The problme with his argument is that anyone can claim to be an engineer, pontificate about solutions, and confuse the public. Doctors and lawyers who violate their ethics codes get rebuked or defrocked-there is no process for that with engineers that are not licensed. Had he not called himself an engineer, this would not have happened. But he was trying to ride on the coat tails of the professional engineering community.
Makes sense to me
1000 Percent behind Mats Järlström.
When I first heard about this case I supported the board. Over time, however I changed my mind. Järlström’s measurements and calculations are no more involved than we might expect of a contractor or technician, nor do his statements materially affect public safety.
As to the issue of analysis of the timing of the lights, I see him as having every right to say what the math tells him and reference the source. However, when he identifies himself as being an engineer, he has overstepped what he should be allowed. He could do so as long as he states with it that he does not have a license as a PE in the state, but even that is pushing the line if he does not have an engineering education of some sort from somewhere, to at least the point of a BS. I have stated in the context of discussion on some matters that I am a licensed engineer but not in this state and regard this as being sufficiently clear as to avoid any appearance of being something that I am not. On one matter in the context of a local drainage issue have also stated to those that know me and know that I am an engineer that, this is not my area of expertise, but by clear reference to the source of data and code requirement, have stated that this is my opinion on this matter.