Originally Posted by Ben Kenobi

From a holistic perspective, I agree that context is an important factor when divining what the "right thing to do" is. I will also agree that unequivocal honesty in all human affairs is not required as an absolute behavior model to be considered a moral or just person. The best I can say is that complete honesty is the default rule, to which many "contextual" exceptions (with innumerable grey areas) may dictate, with reasonable prudence, less than absolute honesty. Furthermore, these "less than absolute honest actions" operate on a continuum as opposed to discrete benchmarks.

With my above comment in mind, I would offer that, in the context of employment applications and interviews, the reasoned approach to candor with the employer is 'complete' honesty. The caveat to this, however, is when a detrimental act has been documented by any governmental agency, the employee candidate must obtain a clear "legal" understanding of what is and is not discoverable by the employer. In the case of the FAA warning letter, the link in my previous post clearly illustrates that, while warning letters are not routinely disclosed under PRIA, a prospective employer can still obtain information concerning the warning letter via FOIA requests. This then places the warning letter in a category that is NOT completely confidential. With this in mind, it would be a significant gamble for an applicant with a warning letter on file to intentionally mislead the employer concerning its existence. The power the employee candidate is giving to the employer is the absolute right to terminate the employee at ANY future date for reasons of a misrepresentation on the employment application.