Common Employment Clauses That Prevent Dual Employment

You remember signing your employment contract, right?

Of course you don’t. You were so excited about the offer—the salary, the title, the validation—that you clicked “I agree” without reading past page two. Somewhere around paragraph seven, buried between the dental insurance explanation and the parking policy, was a sentence that might have made you pause:

“Employee agrees to devote their full business time, attention, and energies exclusively to the performance of their duties for the Company and shall not engage in any other business, profession, or occupation without prior written consent.”

Translation: You just agreed you can’t have a second job.

Not without permission. Not even a side hustle. Not consulting on weekends. Not freelancing at night. Nothing.

And if you violate this? Immediate termination. Forfeiture of unvested stock. Potential lawsuit for damages. And depending on your industry, possible blacklisting that follows you for years.

This isn’t hypothetical. This is standard practice across most white-collar industries in North America, Europe, and increasingly, the world.

But it wasn’t always this way.

A Brief History: How Employers Claimed Ownership of Your Time

The Guild Era (Pre-Industrial Revolution)

For most of human history, dual employment wasn’t just allowed—it was necessary for survival.

Medieval craftsmen were members of guilds, but they also:

Farmed their own land
Took odd jobs
Worked seasonal labor
Sold goods at market

The concept of “exclusive employment” didn’t exist because most people were either self-employed or working multiple gigs just to eat.

Even early apprenticeships allowed outside work once you’d fulfilled your daily obligations to your master.

The Industrial Revolution (1760-1840): The Birth of the Employment Contract

Factories changed everything.

When production moved to assembly lines and shift work, employers needed reliable, full-time labor. You couldn’t run a textile mill if half your workers were also farming or blacksmithing.

The first “exclusive service” clauses appeared in factory contracts:

Must work designated hours
Can’t work for competitors
Can’t moonlight during shifts

But: Outside of shift hours, workers were still free. If you worked 6 AM – 2 PM at the mill, you could do whatever you wanted after.

The restriction was on your TIME, not your LIFE.

The White-Collar Revolution (1900s-1950s): Loyalty Becomes Valuable

As office work and professional services grew, a new problem emerged: knowledge workers could take what they learned to competitors.

A factory worker’s knowledge was limited to operating machinery. But a salesman knew client lists. An engineer knew proprietary designs. A banker knew investment strategies.

Employers began demanding loyalty, not just time.

The first “duty of loyalty” and “conflict of interest” clauses appeared in:

Banking (early 1900s)
Law firms (1920s-1930s)
Corporate management (1940s-1950s)

The logic: “We’re investing in training you. You can’t use that training to help our competitors.”

This made sense for direct competitors. If you’re a Coca-Cola chemist, you obviously can’t also work for Pepsi.

But it quickly expanded beyond reason.

The Non-Compete Explosion (1960s-1990s): Ownership Beyond Employment

By the 1960s, employers weren’t satisfied with controlling your time during employment. They wanted to control what you did after you left.

Enter: The Non-Compete Agreement (NCA)

Original purpose: Prevent executives and senior leaders from taking trade secrets to competitors immediately after leaving.

What it became: A weapon to prevent anyone—from software engineers to sandwich makers—from working in their field after quitting.

Absurd examples that actually happened:

Jimmy John’s (sandwich chain) made minimum-wage employees sign non-competes preventing them from working at ANY sandwich shop within 2 miles for 2 years
Amazon warehouse workers signed agreements preventing them from working at competing warehouses
Hair stylists forbidden from working at salons within 10-mile radius

Why employers did this: Not because sandwich artists have trade secrets. Because non-competes:

Reduce worker mobility (can’t leave for better job)
Suppress wages (fewer options = less negotiating power)
Eliminate competition (can’t start competing business)

The backlash: By the 2010s, states began banning or restricting non-competes for low-wage workers. California banned them entirely (except in sale of business). The FTC proposed a nationwide ban in 2023 (currently in legal limbo).

But the damage was done. The culture of employment exclusivity had been normalized.

The Gig Economy Paradox (2000s-Present): Freedom or Fragmentation?

Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Upwork—the “gig economy” promised freedom from traditional employment.

The pitch: Be your own boss! Work when you want! Multiple income streams!

The reality: Most gig workers:

Have no benefits
No job security
No employment protections
Are classified as “independent contractors” to avoid labor laws

The twist: Even though gig work is explicitly non-exclusive (you CAN work for Uber and Lyft simultaneously), traditional employers increasingly see gig work as a threat to your availability.

Many companies now ask:

“Do you have any outside employment or business activities?”

If you answer yes, you might not get hired. If you answer no and they find out later, you might get fired for dishonesty.

The irony: Employers want the flexibility to treat you as disposable (layoffs, at-will employment) but demand you treat them as your only commitment.

Global Perspective: How Different Countries Handle Dual Employment

North America: The Employer’s Paradise

United States

General rule: Employers can restrict dual employment unless prohibited by state law.

At-will employment (49 states except Montana) means:

Employer can fire you for any reason not explicitly illegal
Having a second job = legal reason to fire
No notice required

State variations:

California, North Dakota, Oklahoma: Non-competes mostly banned
Texas, Florida, Georgia: Non-competes heavily enforced
Most others: Case-by-case, leaning pro-employer

Unionized workers: Collective bargaining agreements often restrict or permit dual employment explicitly

Reality: Unless your contract explicitly allows it, assume dual employment is forbidden in professional roles.

Canada

Similar to U.S., with regional variations:

Common law “duty of loyalty” applies even without written contract:

Employees owe undivided loyalty to employer
Moonlighting CAN be grounds for dismissal if:
- Conflicts with employer’s interests
- Reduces job performance
- Uses employer’s time/resources

Quebec (civil law system): Slightly more worker-friendly. Employers must prove actual harm from dual employment.

Federal employees: Strict conflict of interest rules prevent most outside work.

Reality: Professional roles expect exclusivity; hourly/service jobs more permissive.

Europe: More Worker Protections, But Still Restricted

European Union (General)

EU Working Time Directive:

Maximum 48-hour work week (averaged over reference period)
Dual employment legal IF total hours don’t exceed limit
Employers can’t prohibit second job if it doesn’t conflict

BUT: Individual countries add restrictions.

United Kingdom

Post-Brexit, similar to EU standards:

Legal position:

No automatic right to second job
Employer CAN restrict if:
- Employment contract has exclusivity clause
- Second job harms performance
- Confidentiality/conflict of interest risk

Employment Rights Act 1996: Protects against unfair dismissal, but having second job without permission = potentially fair dismissal.

Reality: Professional jobs expect exclusivity; retail/hospitality more flexible.

Germany

Worker-friendly, but with limits:

General rule: Employees CAN have second job unless:

Contract explicitly prohibits it
Violates working time laws (max 48 hrs/week, usually)
Competes directly with employer
Harms primary job performance

Works Council (Betriebsrat) involvement: Large companies’ works councils can negotiate dual employment policies.

Reality: Dual employment more accepted than U.S., but still requires transparency.

France

Strict labor protections:

Labour Code Article L1222-5: Employees have freedom to work multiple jobs UNLESS:

Exceeds 48 hours/week (legal maximum)
Violates rest period requirements (11 consecutive hours/day)
Competes with employer

Non-compete clauses: Legal, but must be:

Limited in time (usually max 2 years)
Limited in geography
Compensated (employer must pay you during non-compete period)

Reality: More dual-employment friendly than U.S., especially for part-time work.

Netherlands

Flexible, with caveats:

General rule: Dual employment allowed unless contract prohibits it.

Employers must allow second job if:

Doesn’t conflict with primary job
Doesn’t harm performance
Total hours reasonable

Reality: Dutch culture values work-life balance; dual employment less common by choice.

Asia: Cultural and Legal Variations

Japan

Historically: Strongly discouraged

Lifetime employment culture (終身雇用): Traditional expectation of single employer for entire career made dual employment almost taboo.

Recent shift (2018): Government actively encourages “side work” (副業, fukugyō) to:

Increase economic dynamism
Supplement aging population’s income
Promote entrepreneurship

Current reality:

Legal, but many companies still have internal prohibitions
Must disclose to primary employer
Still culturally unusual for full-time dual employment
Part-time side gigs increasingly accepted

South Korea

Similar to Japan:

Traditionally: Single employer loyalty expected

Labor Standards Act: Doesn’t explicitly prohibit dual employment, but employers can restrict via contract.

Recent trends: Government promoting “N잡” (N-job) culture—multiple income streams—but enforcement of old restrictions remains.

China

Complex and evolving:

Labor Contract Law (2008): Doesn’t prohibit dual employment, but:

Employer can prohibit if second job “affects completion of work tasks”
Must disclose second job if required by contract
Non-competes enforceable (with compensation) for senior roles

Reality:

State-owned enterprises: Dual employment often forbidden
Private sector: Increasingly flexible, especially in tech
Gig economy booming (delivery, ride-share)

India

Rapidly changing landscape:

No specific law prohibiting dual employment

BUT:

Most employment contracts include exclusivity clauses
Shops and Establishments Acts (state-level) regulate working hours
IT/tech sector: Dual employment increasingly common and tolerated
Traditional sectors: Still expect exclusivity

COVID-era shift: Remote work normalized multiple income streams; enforcement loosening.

Singapore

Highly regulated:

Employment Act: Doesn’t prohibit dual employment directly.

BUT:

Work pass holders (foreigners) must get Ministry of Manpower approval
Most contracts have exclusivity clauses
Small job market = high risk of discovery

Reality: Dual employment possible but requires careful navigation.

Latin America: Worker Protections vs. Enforcement

Brazil

Labor laws favor workers, but:

Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT):

Doesn’t prohibit dual employment
Employers can restrict via contract
Must not exceed legal working hours (44 hrs/week)

Reality: Informal economy huge; dual employment common but often undocumented.

Mexico

Federal Labor Law:

Dual employment legal unless contract prohibits
Must not exceed legal limits (48 hrs/week)
Employers increasingly adding restriction clauses

The Employee vs. Contractor Divide

Here’s where it gets legally interesting.

W2 Employee (U.S.) / PAYE Employee (UK) / Standard Employment Contract

What you are: An employee with benefits, protections, and obligations.

What this means for dual employment:

Employer CAN restrict your outside work
You owe “duty of loyalty” even without explicit clause
Employer controls your work hours, methods, tools
Benefits (health insurance, retirement) tied to this employment
Subject to all contract clauses (non-compete, IP assignment, etc.)

Dual employment risk: HIGH Unless contract explicitly allows it, assume it’s forbidden.

1099 Contractor (U.S.) / Self-Employed / Freelancer

What you are: Independent business providing services to a client.

What this means for dual employment:

Multiple clients expected and normal
No “duty of loyalty” (unless contract creates one)
You control your hours, methods, tools
No benefits from client
Generally CAN’T be restricted from other work (unless specific NDA/non-compete negotiated)

Dual employment risk: LOW Multiple clients is the business model.

BUT WATCH OUT FOR:

Misclassification: If you’re really an employee but classified as contractor, you lose protections and employer gains control
Exclusivity clauses in contractor agreements: Some clients try to sneak these in
IP ownership disputes: If two clients both claim ownership of your work

The Misclassification Trap

What employers do: Classify workers as “contractors” to avoid:

Payroll taxes
Benefits
Labor law protections
Overtime pay

Then they:

Require exclusive availability
Control your work hours
Dictate your methods
Provide tools/equipment

This is illegal. You’re an employee being misclassified.

The test (varies by jurisdiction, but generally):

Does employer control HOW you work? (Employee)
Do you have multiple clients? (Contractor)
Do you use your own tools? (Contractor)
Are you economically dependent on one client? (Employee)

If you’re misclassified:

You’re owed back taxes, benefits, overtime
Employer faces penalties
But: You might get fired if you challenge it

Hybrid Models: The W2 Contractor

Some industries use contract employees:

W2 status (employee for tax purposes)
Fixed-term contract (3 months, 6 months, 1 year)
Fewer benefits than permanent employees
Often placed through staffing agencies

Dual employment status:

Usually allowed since they’re temporary
BUT contract may still have restrictions
Agency contracts often prohibit competing placements

Now, The Clauses: What’s Actually In Your Contract

Let’s break down every clause employers use to lock you down, where they come from, and how enforceable they actually are.

1. UNIVERSAL CLAUSES (Found Across Most Industries)

A. Exclusive Services / Duty of Loyalty Clause

Standard language:

“Employee agrees to devote their full business time, attention, and energies to the performance of their duties for the Company and shall not engage in any other business, profession, or occupation during the term of employment without prior written consent.”

Origin: Early 1900s corporate management contracts. Borrowed from British common law “duty of fidelity.”

What it actually means: You can’t have ANY other job, even non-competing ones, without permission.

How broad it is: Some versions ban:

Serving on nonprofit boards
Teaching classes
Freelance writing
Selling crafts on Etsy
Passive income (rental properties sometimes!)

Enforceability:

Strong in: Executive roles, consulting, finance, law
Weak in: Hourly jobs, part-time roles
Courts consider: Whether second job actually harmed employer

Red flags in the language:

“Full time, attention, and energies” = very broad
“Without prior written consent” = employer discretion
“During and after employment” = overreach (likely unenforceable for “after”)

Global variations:

U.S.: Broadly enforceable
EU: Enforceable only if reasonable
California: Must show actual conflict
France: Must not exceed working hour limits

B. Conflict of Interest Clause

Standard language:

“Employee shall not, directly or indirectly, engage in any activity, employment, or business that competes with, conflicts with, or is adverse to the interests of the Company, or that could reasonably be expected to impair Employee’s ability to perform duties hereunder.”

Origin: Fiduciary duty law from banking/finance (1920s-1930s). Extended to all employment by 1960s.

What it means:

Can’t work for competitors
Can’t have financial interest in competitors
Can’t do business with company’s clients/suppliers
Can’t take opportunities that “belong” to employer

The “reasonably be expected” problem: This is deliberately vague. Employer decides what “could reasonably impair” your work.

Examples of violations:

Marketing manager at Agency A consults for Agency B (direct conflict)
Software engineer at Company A freelances for Company B in same sector (possible IP conflict)
Sales rep owns stock in competitor (financial conflict)
Product manager learns about vendor through job, then does personal business with that vendor (opportunity conflict)

Enforceability:

Strong when: Actual, provable conflict exists
Weak when: “Conflict” is speculative or employer is being vindictive
Courts ask: Did second job actually harm employer? Did employee use confidential info?

Geographic scope: Some employers try to claim “anywhere in the world” conflicts. Courts often narrow this to reasonable markets.

C. Non-Compete Agreement (NCA) / Restrictive Covenant

Standard language:

“For the duration of employment and for a period of [12/24 months] following termination for any reason, Employee agrees not to, directly or indirectly, own, manage, operate, control, be employed by, participate in, or be connected with any business, individual, partner, firm, corporation or other entity that competes with the Company within [geographic area] in [specific industry/activities].”

Origin: British common law (1600s!) for apprentices. Revived in U.S. in early 1900s for executives. Exploded in use after 1980s.

Purpose (claimed): Protect trade secrets and client relationships.

Purpose (actual): Reduce worker mobility and suppress wages.

The elements that determine enforceability:

Time limit:
- Reasonable: 6-12 months for most roles, up to 24 months for executives
- Unreasonable: 3-5 years (courts often strike these down)
Geographic scope:
- Reasonable: Actual market where you competed (e.g., “New York City metro”)
- Unreasonable: “Worldwide” for a local business
Scope of restricted activity:
- Reasonable: “Software development for HR tech companies”
- Unreasonable: “Any technology work”
Consideration (payment):
- Some states require employer to PAY you during non-compete period
- Others allow non-competes as condition of employment

Enforceability by U.S. State:

BANNED or SEVERELY RESTRICTED:

California: Banned except in sale of business or dissolution of partnership
North Dakota: Banned
Oklahoma: Banned except sale of business
Minnesota: Banned for workers earning <$114k (2025 threshold)
Washington, D.C.: Banned for workers earning <$150k
Colorado: Banned except for executives and highly compensated workers

HEAVILY ENFORCED:

Texas (but must be reasonable in scope)
Florida (statutory framework supports them)
Massachusetts (requires garden leave pay)
Georgia (courts can “blue pencil” = rewrite to make enforceable)

MODERATE ENFORCEMENT: Most other states. Courts apply “reasonableness” test.

The “Blue Pencil” Problem: Some states allow judges to modify overly broad non-competes instead of throwing them out entirely.

Example:

Your contract says: “Can’t work in tech anywhere in U.S. for 5 years”
Texas judge blues-pencils it to: “Can’t work in HR software in Dallas metro for 18 months”
You’re still screwed, just less screwed

The FTC Ban (Pending): In 2023, FTC proposed banning non-competes nationwide. Legal challenges ongoing. If enacted, would override state laws.

Global perspective:

UK: Enforceable if reasonable, but disfavored
Germany: Must be compensated (50% of salary during restriction)
France: Must be compensated; often 30-50% of salary
Canada: Enforceable but courts scrutinize heavily
India: Generally unenforceable under Contract Act (restraint of trade)
Japan: Enforceable only for senior executives with substantial compensation

Dual employment implication: If you have a non-compete, you literally can’t work for a competitor—not during employment, not after. Dual employment in same industry = automatic violation.

D. Moonlighting / Outside Employment Prohibition

Standard language:

“Employee may not engage in any outside employment, consulting, or business activity during the term of employment without prior written approval from [Manager/HR/Legal]. Employee must disclose all outside activities annually.”

Origin: Government and defense sector (1940s-1950s, Cold War era security concerns). Spread to private sector in 1980s.

What this means: Even non-competing work requires disclosure and approval.

What employers claim they’re preventing:

Conflicts of interest
Fatigue affecting performance
Misuse of company time/resources

What they’re actually doing: Maintaining control and limiting your options.

The approval process is often arbitrary:

No clear standards for what gets approved
Denials don’t have to be justified
Can be revoked at any time

Enforcement mechanism: Annual disclosure forms asking: “Do you have any outside employment or business interests?”

Lying on this form = termination for dishonesty (even if the work itself was harmless).

Industries where this is strictest:

Government (security concerns)
Finance (FINRA regulations)
Healthcare (patient safety)
Defense contractors (clearance requirements)

Challenge: How is “outside employment” defined?

Selling items on eBay? (Some say yes)
Airbnb hosting? (Gray area)
Blogging with ads? (Probably)
Owning rental property? (Usually exempt)

Courts generally uphold these IF:

Applied consistently
Reasonable business justification
Not punitive

E. Confidentiality / NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement)

Standard language:

“Employee acknowledges that during employment, they will have access to and become acquainted with confidential and proprietary information including but not limited to: trade secrets, business strategies, financial data, customer lists, product roadmaps, pricing information, marketing plans, and employee information. Employee agrees not to disclose such information to any third party during or after employment.”

Origin: Trade secret law, dating back centuries. Formalized in modern contracts by 1950s.

What’s typically considered confidential:

Client lists and contact information
Pricing strategies and discount structures
Product development roadmaps
Financial data (revenue, costs, margins)
Marketing strategies and upcoming campaigns
Proprietary processes or methodologies
Employee compensation data
Merger/acquisition discussions
Source code and technical documentation

Duration: Usually perpetual (“during and after employment”) for true trade secrets. Courts may limit for other information.

Why this matters for dual employment:

The inadvertent disclosure problem: You learn Client X’s pain points at Job A. At Job B, you pitch Client X using that knowledge. Even if you didn’t intentionally use Job A’s info, you’ve violated the NDA.

The “inevitable disclosure” doctrine: Some courts recognize that if you move to a competitor (or work for one simultaneously), you’ll inevitably use confidential information, even subconsciously.

Examples:

PepsiCo v. Redmond (1995): Court enjoined Quaker Oats executive from working at Gatorade because he’d inevitably use PepsiCo secrets.
Applied to dual employment: If jobs overlap, courts assume you’ll cross-contaminate knowledge.

The memory problem: You can’t “unknow” things. If you’ve been immersed in Company A’s strategy, it shapes how you think at Company B.

Enforceability: Very strong for actual trade secrets (customer lists, proprietary algorithms). Weaker for general industry knowledge.

The “skills and experience” exception: You CAN use general skills and knowledge gained during employment. You CAN’T use specific confidential information.

Example:

✅ Allowed: “I learned effective cold-calling techniques at Job A”
❌ Violation: “Here’s Job A’s entire client database and what we charged them”

Global variations:

U.S.: Very broad, trade secret law varies by state
EU GDPR: Restricts what employee data can be kept confidential
UK: Springboard doctrine—can’t use confidential info as “springboard” to advantage
China: Increasingly enforced; economic espionage concerns

F. Intellectual Property (IP) Assignment Clause

Standard language:

“Employee agrees that all inventions, discoveries, ideas, improvements, software, creative works, and other intellectual property (whether or not patentable or copyrightable) conceived, developed, or reduced to practice by Employee, either alone or with others, during the term of employment, or within [6/12] months following termination, that relate in any way to the actual or anticipated business, research, or development of the Company, shall be the sole and exclusive property of the Company.”

Origin: Patent law (early 1900s for industrial R&D). Expanded to all creative work by 1980s.

The scope creep problem:

Originally: Inventions created using company resources, during work hours, related to company business.

Now: Anything you create, anywhere, anytime, if it’s remotely related to what the company does.

The “remote relation” trap: If your company does ANYTHING tech-related (most companies now), they might claim ownership of any software you write, even on weekends, even for totally different purposes.

Example:

You work as data analyst at Insurance Company A
On weekends, you build a meal-planning app for fun
Company claims: “We do data analysis. Your app uses data analysis. We own it.”

California’s protection (Labor Code § 2870):

California (and a few other states: Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, North Carolina, Utah, Washington) have laws limiting IP assignment.

You own your invention if ALL THREE are true:

Developed entirely on your own time
Without using employer’s equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secrets
Does not relate to employer’s business or actual/demonstrably anticipated research

The problem: Proving #2 and #3 is nearly impossible if you work from home (using your own equipment that’s also your work equipment) or if your employer’s business is broad.

Dual employment nightmare:

You work at:

Job A: Fintech company
Job B: Healthcare tech company

You build a budgeting app on weekends.

Who owns it?

Job A claims: “We do financial software”
Job B claims: “We do software”
Both might have legitimate claims

Result: You can’t safely create anything without risking legal battles.

Work-for-hire: Separate but related. If you’re creating content (writing, design, video), “work-for-hire” clauses mean employer owns it automatically.

Typical work-for-hire language:

“All work product created during employment is a ‘work made for hire’ under copyright law and Company owns all rights, title, and interest.”

Dual employment problem: If you’re a writer/designer at Job A and Job B, and you create something, both might claim ownership.

Enforceability: Strong for work clearly related to company business. Weak for unrelated side projects (especially in California).

Courts consider:

Was company time/resources used?
Is it related to company business?
Did employee try to hide it?

2. INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS

Now we get into the specialized hell of industry-specific lockdown.

FINANCE & BANKING

The most regulated industry for dual employment. Not just contract clauses—actual federal law.

A. FINRA Rule 3270: Outside Business Activities (OBA)

Who it applies to: Anyone registered with FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority):

Stockbrokers
Financial advisors
Investment bankers
Wealth managers
Securities traders

The rule: You MUST provide prior written notice to your employer of ANY outside business activity, whether or not it’s securities-related.

What counts as OBA:

Any other job (even flipping burgers)
Board positions (even nonprofit)
Consulting
Teaching for compensation
Selling on eBay (if regular activity)
Real estate investing (if active, not passive)
Running a side business

The process:

Submit written request describing activity
Employer reviews for conflicts
Employer can deny or impose restrictions
If approved, activity is monitored
Must update if circumstances change

What employer considers:

Time commitment
Conflict of interest
Regulatory risk
Reputational risk

Penalties for violation:

Fines: $5,000 – $75,000
Suspension from industry: months to years
Permanent bar from securities industry
Employer termination
Criminal charges (if fraud involved)

Why it exists: Prevent:

Insider trading
Client poaching
Selling away (unregistered securities)
Conflicts of interest

Dual employment reality: You CAN technically work two finance jobs if both approve. In practice, neither will.

B. SEC Personal Trading Restrictions

Who it applies to: Employees of:

Investment advisors
Hedge funds
Private equity firms
Mutual fund companies

Requirements:

Pre-clear personal stock trades
Report holdings quarterly
Observe blackout periods
Can’t trade on insider information

Dual employment problem: If you work at Fund A and Fund B:

Both have different restricted lists
Both have different blackout periods
Trading becomes impossible without violating one or both

The Chinese Wall problem: Finance firms have “information barriers” between departments. If you work at two firms, you might have insider info from both, making it impossible to build compliant walls.

C. Banking Compliance: Fiduciary Duty

Who it applies to: Bank employees with client-facing roles or access to confidential information.

Standard clause:

“Employee acknowledges that employment in the banking industry requires undivided loyalty, freedom from conflicts of interest, and strict confidentiality. Employee may not engage in any activity that compromises fiduciary duties to clients.”

What this means:

Can’t work at another bank
Can’t have financial interest in clients
Can’t accept gifts from vendors
Can’t steer business to personal interests

Why banks won’t allow dual employment:

Client confidentiality conflicts
Fiduciary duty to clients
Regulatory scrutiny
Reputational risk

HEALTHCARE

Medical licensing and patient safety create unique dual employment challenges.

A. Medical Licensing Board Disclosure

Who it applies to:

Physicians
Nurses
Pharmacists
Therapists
Any licensed healthcare professional

Requirements (vary by state, but common):

Report ALL employment to licensing board
Update within 30 days of change
Maintain malpractice insurance at each job
Subject to background checks at each facility

The credentialing nightmare: Each hospital/clinic requires separate:

Credentialing application (50-100 pages)
Peer references
Background check
Competency verification
Ongoing continuing education tracking

Dual employment burden: Maintaining credentials at two facilities = double the administrative work.

B. HIPAA Confidentiality Conflicts

The problem: You’re a nurse at Hospital A and Hospital B.

Patient X is admitted to Hospital A with condition Y.

Later, Patient X comes to Hospital B.

The legal trap:

You know Patient X’s history from Hospital A
But that’s protected health information (PHI)
You can’t use it at Hospital B without separate consent
But you also can’t “unknow” it
Even unconscious bias violates HIPAA

Real scenario: Nurse at two competing hospitals recognized patient from Hospital A when they arrived at Hospital B. Made treatment decision based on Hospital A knowledge. Both hospitals were fined. Nurse lost license.

Why healthcare systems ban dual employment at competing facilities: HIPAA violations are too risky.

C. Patient Safety: Hour Restrictions

ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) rules for residents:

Maximum 80 hours/week averaged over 4 weeks
One day off per week averaged over 4 weeks
Shifts max 24 hours (plus 4 for transitions)

Similar restrictions exist for:

Nurses (some states limit consecutive hours)
Pilots (FAA rest requirements)
Truck drivers (DOT hours of service)

Dual employment problem: If your combined hours exceed safety limits, both employers could be liable for patient harm.

D. Malpractice Insurance Conflicts

The issue: Malpractice insurers often ask:

“Do you have any other clinical employment?”

Why they ask:

More exposure = higher premiums
Dual employment = divided attention = higher risk
Some insurers refuse to cover dual employment

Result: Even if hospitals allow dual employment, insurance might not.

GOVERNMENT & DEFENSE

National security and public trust create the strictest employment restrictions.

A. Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326)

Who it applies to: Most federal employees, especially:

Executive branch (not President/VP)
Some state/local employees working on federally funded programs

Restrictions:

Can’t engage in political activity while on duty
Can’t use official authority for political purposes
Can’t solicit political contributions from subordinates
Some positions (e.g., FBI, Secret Service) can’t engage in ANY partisan political activity

Outside employment relevance: If your second job involves political activity (campaign work, lobbying), it’s forbidden.

B. Security Clearance Requirements

Who it applies to: Government employees and contractors with clearances:

Confidential
Secret
Top Secret
TS/SCI (Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information)

SF-86 (Security Clearance Application) requires disclosure of:

ALL employment (past 10 years)
ALL foreign contacts
ALL financial interests
Foreign travel
Criminal history

Continuous evaluation: Clearance holders are continuously monitored. Taking second job without disclosure = automatic revocation.

Second job approval considerations:

Foreign connections (automatic denial)
Financial vulnerabilities (second job suggests money problems)
Time availability (affects reliability)
Nature of work (competing classified work = conflict)

Industries that are red flags:

Foreign-owned companies
Defense contractors working for competitors
Media/journalism (OpSec concerns)
Cryptocurrency/finance (foreign influence risk)

Reality: Most clearance holders CAN’T get approval for second jobs.

C. 5 CFR Part 2635: Standards of Ethical Conduct

Applies to: All federal executive branch employees.

Key restrictions:

§ 2635.802: Conflicting Financial Interests Can’t work on matters affecting your financial interests.

Dual employment problem: If you work for government AND a contractor the government oversees, you’ve created an impermissible conflict.

§ 2635.703: Use of Nonpublic Information Can’t use government info for private gain.

Example: Work at FDA reviewing drug applications. Can’t also consult for pharma company.

§ 2635.804: Seeking Other Employment Must recuse yourself from matters involving potential future employers.

Problem: If you’re already working second job, you can’t work on anything affecting them at government job.

D. Post-Government Employment Restrictions (Revolving Door)

18 U.S.C. § 207: After leaving government, you can’t:

Represent anyone before your former agency on matters you worked on (lifetime ban)
Represent anyone before your former agency at all (1-2 year ban, depending on level)

Senior officials:

One-year cooling-off period before lobbying
Two years for very senior roles

This affects dual employment: Can’t work for government AND lobbying firm simultaneously.

LAW

Legal ethics create near-insurmountable barriers to dual employment.

A. ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Most states adopt some version of these rules.

Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest

“A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person, or by a personal interest of the lawyer.”

Dual employment problem: If you work at Law Firm A and Law Firm B, you WILL have client conflicts.

Example:

Firm A represents Company X in merger
Firm B represents Company Y (which opposes merger)
You can’t work on either side
Your presence at both firms might disqualify both firms

Rule 1.9: Duties to Former Clients Even after leaving Firm A, you can’t represent anyone adverse to Firm A’s clients on matters you worked on.

Screening doesn’t solve it: Some jurisdictions allow “ethical walls” to screen conflicted lawyers. But if you’re simultaneously employed, screening is impossible.

B. Attorney-Client Privilege

The sacred rule: Communications between attorney and client are confidential.

Dual employment problem:

Firm A tells you privileged info about Client X
Firm B represents Client Y (adverse to X)
You possess privileged info that could help Client Y
Even if you don’t use it, your KNOWLEDGE creates conflict

Disqualification: If conflict is discovered, BOTH firms might be disqualified from representing their clients.

This has happened: Law firms have been disqualified mid-trial because an associate worked at opposing firm before.

C. Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL)

The rule: Only licensed attorneys can practice law.

Dual employment relevance: If you’re a lawyer moonlighting as a consultant giving legal advice, you’re practicing law at both jobs. Ethics boards require disclosure.

D. Law Firm Partnership Agreements

Common clause:

“Partner agrees not to practice law with any other firm or organization during partnership.”

Why:

Client loyalty
Firm reputation
Conflict prevention
Economic interest (you can’t bill two firms for the same hour)

Associates: Usually have similar restrictions, though less strict.

Reality: Law firms explicitly forbid dual employment with other firms.

TECH & SOFTWARE

IP wars and talent poaching create aggressive restrictions.

A. Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement (PIIA)

Universal in tech. Standard language:

“All inventions, software, algorithms, and other intellectual property conceived, developed, or reduced to practice during employment, whether during work hours or not, whether using Company resources or not, that relate to Company’s actual or demonstrably anticipated business, shall be the sole property of the Company.”

How broad is “relate to”?

Courts have interpreted this VERY broadly.

Example:

You work at social media company
On weekends, you build a gardening app
Company argues: “We use mobile apps. We own your gardening app.”
Depending on jurisdiction, they might win.

California Labor Code § 2870 (protection):

You own your invention if:

Developed entirely on your own time
Without Company equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secrets
Does not relate to Company’s business OR actual/anticipated research

Problem: #2 is nearly impossible to prove if you work from home (your laptop is also your work laptop).

Washington State (RCW 49.44.140): Similar protection, slightly broader.

Other states: Less protection. Employer claims are stronger.

B. Non-Solicitation of Employees

Standard clause:

“For [12/24] months after termination, Employee agrees not to solicit, recruit, or hire any Company employee or contractor.”

Dual employment problem: If you work at Tech Company A and Tech Company B:

You know talented people at A
B needs engineers
If you refer A’s engineer to B, you’ve violated non-solicitation (even though you’re still employed at A!)

“Raiding” accusations: Companies view dual employment as Trojan horse for talent theft.

C. Non-Solicitation of Clients/Customers

Standard clause:

“For [12/24] months after termination, Employee agrees not to solicit or provide services to any Company client with whom Employee had contact during employment.”

Dual employment nightmare:

Scenario:

You do sales at SaaS Company A and Company B
Client X is prospect at both companies
You contact Client X on behalf of Company A
Later, Client X becomes prospect at Company B
Have you violated Company A’s non-solicitation by pursuing them for Company B?

Yes.

Even worse: Both companies might claim Client X as “their” client, disqualifying you from pursuing them at either job.

D. Open Source Contribution Policies

Many tech companies have policies like:

“Employees may contribute to open source projects with manager approval, provided contributions do not use Company IP, conflict with Company interests, or occur during work hours.”

Dual employment problem:

Company A forbids contributing to Competitor B’s open-source project
Company B IS that competitor
If you contribute to Company B’s project (even as their employee), Company A might claim violation

SALES & BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Sales roles have the most aggressive restrictions because relationships = value.

A. Client Ownership / Non-Solicitation

Aggressive version:

“All clients contacted, pursued, or acquired by Employee during employment are Company clients. Employee may not solicit, service, or contact these clients for any competitive purpose during employment or for [24] months after termination.”

Why this kills dual employment: If you’re in sales at Company A and Company B (even in different sectors), and any client overlap exists, you’ve violated this.

B. Commission Clawback Clauses

Standard language:

“Commissions are earned only upon full payment by client. If Employee terminates within [6/12] months of deal closing, commissions are forfeited or must be repaid.”

Dual employment trap:

Close deal at Company A (earn commission)
Leave Company A within clawback period
Company A demands commission back
But you were working at Company B the whole time
Company A argues: “You were using B’s time to close our deals, so you owe us”

This has resulted in lawsuits.

C. Territory Restrictions

Common in sales:

“Employee is assigned to [geographic territory / industry vertical / client segment]. Employee may not pursue clients outside assigned territory.”

Dual employment problem:

Company A assigns you Northeast territory
Company B assigns you Healthcare vertical
Client overlap = conflict

CONSULTING

Big 4 and strategy firms are notoriously restrictive.

A. Exclusivity Clauses

Standard at Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG:

“Consultant agrees to work exclusively for the Firm and may not provide consulting, advisory, or other professional services to any third party without express written permission.”

Why:

Billable hour expectations (50-70 hrs/week)
Client confidentiality
Firm reputation
Conflict of interest

Getting approval: Possible for teaching, board service, pro bono work. Impossible for competing consulting.

B. Client Conflict Checks

Before taking any new client: Consulting firms run conflict checks against:

Current clients
Former clients (past 2 years)
Employees’ outside interests

If you’re working elsewhere: Your second job’s clients might conflict with firm’s clients, disqualifying both you and the firm from engagements.

MEDIA & ENTERTAINMENT

Exclusivity here is about brand control.

A. Exclusivity Riders (On-Air Talent, Actors)

Standard clause:

“Talent agrees not to appear in any competing program, advertisement, or media production during the Term without Producer’s consent.”

Examples:

News anchor can’t appear on competing network
Actor in Coke ad can’t do Pepsi ad
YouTuber sponsored by Brand A can’t promote Brand B

Why: Brand dilution, audience confusion.

B. Morality Clauses

Often included:

“Talent agrees to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with public morals and not to engage in behavior that would bring disrepute to Producer or Brand.”

Dual employment relevance: If your second job is controversial (OnlyFans, cannabis industry, political activism), it might violate morality clause at first job.

EDUCATION

Generally most permissive, but with caveats.

A. Public School Teacher Contracts

Typical language:

“Teacher agrees to devote such time outside of school hours as necessary to preparation, grading, parent communication, and professional development.”

The vagueness: “Such time as necessary” is undefined. Second job could be argued to interfere.

B. University Faculty (Tenure-Track)

Common policy:

“Faculty may engage in outside consulting for up to [one day per week / 20% of time] with Department Chair approval.”

Research grants: If research is federally funded, outside employment might violate grant terms.

C. Adjunct Professors

Most permissive: Multiple adjunct positions are expected.

Restrictions:

Can’t teach exact same course at competing schools same semester
Can’t recruit students from School A to School B
Must disclose all teaching appointments

HOURLY / SERVICE / BLUE-COLLAR

Fewer formal restrictions, but practical barriers.

A. “Open Availability” Requirements

Retail, food service, warehouses increasingly demand:

“Employee must maintain open availability and be available for shifts on short notice.”

This kills dual employment: Can’t have “open availability” at two jobs.

B. Overtime Calculation Issues

FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act): Overtime (1.5x pay) kicks in after 40 hours in a workweek.

Problem: If you work 45 hours at Job A and 20 at Job B:

Job A owes you 5 hours overtime
But were you tired/impaired at Job A because of Job B?
Some employers pre-emptively ban second jobs to avoid this

C. Workers’ Compensation Conflicts

The scenario:

Injured at Job A
Also work Job B
Both workers’ comp insurers might deny claim:
- Job A insurer: “Injury was from Job B”
- Job B insurer: “Injury was from Job A”

Result: Some employers require disclosure of other employment for insurance purposes.

CONCLUSION: The Locked-Down Workforce

We’ve gone from a world where dual employment was normal—expected, even—to one where it’s forbidden by default.

The progression:

Pre-industrial: Multiple income streams = survival
Industrial era: Control your hours during shifts
Corporate era: Control your loyalty and knowledge
Modern era: Control your entire professional existence, even after you leave

What started as reasonable protection of trade secrets has metastasized into total employment lockdown.

The result:

Workers can’t supplement income
Talent is artificially immobilized
Companies face less competition
Wages are suppressed

The r/overemployed movement is a direct response to this overreach.

If employers are going to claim total ownership of your professional life—while offering no job security, cutting benefits, and laying you off when convenient—then some workers have decided:

Fuck it. We’ll just hide it.