Employer’s are generally free under the law to “adjust the duties” of an at will employee as they see fit. There is almost no exception. I submit, however, that when “adjusting the duties” of an employee amounts to doubling their workload, it’s time to rethink some fundamental principles of employment law.
Picture this: You’re hired as Director of XYZ Global’s Sales Department. Six months later, your employer announces you’ll also be taking on a second full-time position as Director of Operations, a position formerly held by a full time employee. Same salary, double the work. When you object, you’re shown the door. Sound outrageous? Under current employment law, it’s perfectly legal.
In fact, as a practicing employment attorney I have recently seen a marked uptick in the number of employees who are terminated or threatened with termination because they are unwilling or unable to take on multiple additional roles which were not included in their job descriptions at the time their employment commenced. In a tightening economy, employers are “tightening up” their organizational charts by requiring fewer employees to do more work than they were originally hired to do. Sometimes imposing double or even triple positions on unsuspecting employees already overburdened. This is happening right now across America, dressed up in corporate euphemisms like “restructuring,” “optimization,” and “increased responsibilities.” The legal justification? A toxic combination of the employment-at-will doctrine and boilerplate contract provisions that grant employers virtually unlimited discretion to “adjust duties.”
The Perfect Storm: When At-Will Employment Meets “Flexible” Contracts
Recent data paints a disturbing picture. According to the Trades Union Congress, 55% of workers report their jobs have become increasingly intense over time, with 61% feeling exhausted at the end of most working days. [Ella Drimer: Work Intensification Rising? 55% of Workers Report Increasing Job Demands; April 16, 2025].
SHRM’s Employee Mental Health in 2024 Research Series, released for Mental Health Awareness Month, found that 44% of 1,405 surveyed U.S. employees feel burned out at work, 45 % feel “emotionally drained” from their work, and 51 % feel “used up” at the end of the workday. A staggering 40% report being required to do more work in the same amount of time. Further, U.S. employees who feel burned out are nearly three times more likely to be job hunting. [Here’s How Bad Burnout Has Become at Work, SHRM.org; April 30, 2024].
These aren’t just statistics—they’re symptoms of a fundamentally broken employment contract system. The culprit? Employment agreements that routinely contain provisions like: “The Company reserves the right to require you to work during other or further days or hours for no additional consideration…” and “…duties, responsibilities, and reporting relationships may be adjusted at any time.”
Courts have traditionally interpreted these clauses in employment contracts (both express and implied employment contracts) with absurd breadth, essentially holding that as long as you’re still receiving your paycheck, your employer can pile on unlimited additional responsibilities. After all, you’re “at-will”—if you don’t like it, you can quit. Or just be fired.
The Unconscionability Doctrine: A Shield Gathering Dust
Here’s what courts seem to have forgotten: even at-will employment is still a contract, and contracts have limits. The doctrine of unconscionability exists to deny the enforcement of harsh and unreasonable contract terms. An unconscionable bargain is one which “‘no man in his senses and not under delusion would make on the one hand, and … no honest and fair man would accept on the other.’” Hume v. United States, 132 U.S. 406, 411, 10 S.Ct. 134, 136, 33 L.Ed. 393 (1889) (quoting Earl of Chesterfield v. Janssen, 2 Ves. Sen. 125, 155, 28 Eng. Rep. 82, 100 (1750)); see also Geldermann & Co. v. Lane Processing, Inc., 527 F.2d 571, 575 (8th Cir.1975).
“Unconscionability is determined by reference to the relative benefit of the bargain to the parties at the time of its making, the nature of the methods employed in negotiating it, and the relative bargaining power of the parties.” United States v. Bedford Assocs., 657 F.2d 1300, 1312–13 (2d Cir.1981) (emphasis added) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 914, 102 S.Ct. 1767, 72 L.Ed.2d 173 (1982).
When an employer demands that one person perform two full-time positions for a single salary, we’ve crossed from “adjusting duties” into exploitation. At that point, the employment contract at the heart of every employment relationship has become an agreement that no reasonable person would make and which no honest person would accept. This isn’t a reasonable interpretation of contractual discretion—it’s an absurd result that courts should refuse to enforce.
Our Courts have long held that contracts which purport to impose commercially unreasonable results should be void as a matter of law. Where the result of the parties’ interpretation of a contract is both absurd and the opposite of what the parties intended, that agreement cannot be justly enforced. “It would be an absurd result to interpret the contract in a manner that leaves one party without a remedy in the event of a breach by the other.” Southridge Partners II Ltd. P’ship v. PotNetwork Holdings, Inc., 3:17-cv-1925 (KAD), 2019 WL 2248691, at 5 (D. Conn. May 24, 2019); see also Samba Enterps., LLC v. iMesh, Inc., No. 06 Civ. 7660 (DC), 2009 WL 705537, at 11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2009) (applying absurd results doctrine where it would “make no sense for [plaintiff] to have signed the Agreement if it thought [defendant] would be able to reap the benefits of [plaintiff’s] efforts … without compensating [plaintiff]”); Cole v. Macklowe, 99 A.D.3d 595, 596, 953 N.Y.S.2d 21, 23 (1st Dep’t 2012) (“the interpretation of the agreement urged by defendants—allowing them to acquire plaintiff’s partnership interest absent the consideration expressed in the agreement—represents a windfall to the defendants that is absurd, not commercially reasonable and contrary to the express terms of the agreement and thus the intent of the parties”); ERC 16W Ltd. P’ship v. Xanadu Mezz Holdings LLC, 95 A.D.3d 498, 503, 943 N.Y.S.2d 493, 498 (1st Dep’t 2012) (“It is a longstanding principle of New York law that a construction of a contract that would give one party an unfair and unreasonable advantage over the other, or that would place one party at the mercy of the other, should, if at all possible, be avoided.”). Pro. Fighters League, LLC v. Takeover Indus., Inc., 770 F. Supp. 3d 718, 726 (S.D.N.Y. 2025).
As the Courts cited above have held, where a party is prevented from reaping the obviously intended benefit of the contract or where an obviously unforeseen windfall will result to one party, the contract is obviously void as absurd. Macklowe and ERC 16W Ltd., supra. Consider the reductio ad absurdum: If “adjusting duties” permits an employer requiring an employee to work two positions, why not three? Five? Ten? At what point does a court finally say, “This has gone too far”? The answer shouldn’t be “never.” In reality, no one person can perform two full time jobs. It is not commercially reasonable to be paid one salary for what amounts to two positions. The very fundamental principal of an employment agreement, either express or implied is: “One job one salary.”
The Implied Covenant: Not Dead, Just Sleeping
Every employment contract in New York and Connecticut includes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. While Murphy v. American Home Products limited this covenant’s application to at-will employment, it didn’t eliminate it entirely when express contractual discretion exists. Murphy v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 304–05, 448 N.E.2d 86, 91 (1983).
Requiring an employee to perform multiple full-time roles isn’t exercising discretion in good faith—it’s weaponizing contract language to extract maximum labor for minimum compensation. As Dalton v. Educational Testing Service reminds us, even broad contractual discretion must be exercised with “a modicum of common sense.” Dalton holds, “Encompassed within the implied obligation of each promisor to exercise good faith are ‘any promises which a reasonable person in the position of the promisee would be justified in understanding were included.’” Dalton v. Educ. Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 388, 663 N.E.2d 289 (1995).
Work Intensification: The Hidden Epidemic
The research is clear: work intensification is destroying American workers. The “always-on” culture enabled by remote work means 36% of workers spend more time outside contracted hours on work emails, while 32% complete core tasks on their own time. Economic uncertainty drives workers to accept these conditions, fearing that resistance means unemployment.
But here’s the thing: accepting the unacceptable shouldn’t be the price of employment. When loyal hard-working employees refuse to take on multiple roles for the same salary, they are not being lazy, they are imposing human limits on otherwise inhuman and patently absurd expectations. They’re making the rational choice not to sacrifice their health and wellbeing for unfair wages and impossible workloads. The Courts should protect their right to do so without suffering economic disaster.
The Gender Dimension: Selective Exploitation
When employers selectively impose dual positions on female employees while sparing their male colleagues, they add discrimination to exploitation. This selective enforcement doesn’t just violate Title VII—it highlights the arbitrary nature of these “adjustments.” If the business truly needed one person to fill two roles, wouldn’t that apply regardless of gender?
This discriminatory application strengthens the unconscionability argument. Oppressive terms selectively enforced reveal bad faith, transforming what might be defended as “business necessity” into targeted exploitation.
Reimagining Contractual Limits
Courts need to remember that employment contracts, even implied and at-will ones, aren’t licenses for unlimited exploitation by employers. Several principles should guide judicial interpretation:
1. Reasonable Scope: “Adjusting duties” should mean modifying existing responsibilities, not multiplying entire positions.
2. Proportionality: Additional responsibilities should bear some relationship to additional compensation.
3. Human Limits: Contracts cannot require the impossible. Two (or more) full-time positions exceed one person’s capacity.
4. Good Faith Boundaries: Discretion exercised to extract maximum value while providing minimum compensation violates good faith.
The Path Forward
The current moment offers a unique opportunity. With burnout reaching crisis levels, courts should reconsider their reflexive deference to employer discretion. The question isn’t whether employers can require anything under at-will employment—it’s whether they should be permitted to demand the impossible.
Some courts are beginning to recognize these limits. The growing acknowledgment of constructive discharge claims when working conditions become intolerable suggests judicial willingness to find boundaries. The next step is recognizing that requiring multiple full-time positions for single compensation crosses that line.
A Call for Judicial Courage
Judges interpreting employment contracts should ask themselves: Would I accept this bargain if I weren’t economically coerced? Would I want my child to sign this agreement? If the answer is no, perhaps it’s time to dust off the unconscionability doctrine and give it some teeth.
The employment-at-will doctrine was never meant to be a blank check for exploitation. Contract law provides tools to prevent abuse—we just need courts brave enough to use them. Because when “flexibility” means working yourself into the ground while your employer posts record profits, something has gone fundamentally wrong with our understanding of fair exchange and reasonable commercial expectations.
The next time an employer claims the right to transform one job into two, three, or more, courts should remember: employment is always a contract and contracts have limits. And those limits exist precisely to prevent the powerful from extracting everything while providing nothing in return. After all, if requiring someone to work two full-time jobs for one salary isn’t unconscionable, what is?
If you’re facing unreasonable work intensification or being forced to shoulder multiple positions without fair compensation, you’re not alone—and you may have options. Contact an employment attorney at Carey & Associates, P.C. to discuss your rights at info@capclaw.com or call 203-255-4150.