Is it duress if you feel you are forced to sign a contract by an employer?
<p>When I was promoted, I was given a significant sign-on bonus, but was made to sign a document that said if I left within 12 months, I would have to pay back the gross amount in around two weeks.</p>

<p>I want to say I was made to sign it under unfair circumstances and come to an agreement with my employer.</p>

<p>Is there any reasonable claim to duress, coercion or a similar description that applies to this situation?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If I did not sign promotion bonus document, my career would be over. Is this duress?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. The premise is hardly true or even logical, and what you describe falls short of duress. Not every imbalance of bargain power implies duress.</p>

<p>First, it seems that you could have declined the bonus, thereby preempting the sanction/remedy for leaving within 12 months.</p>

<p>Second, it seems hard to prove (and unrealistic) that your career would have been over if you refused to sign the document. The employer can easily refute that allegation by pointing out that there are many others who did not sign that employer's document and yet work elsewhere as investment bankers. You would need certain, additional context to reasonably allow for a conclusion that your career altogether depends on what happens with this single entity.</p>

<p>Third, your mention that "<em>the bonus mitigates the horrendous weekly hours</em>" reinforces the idea that signing the document was your preference (namely, for the purpose of obtaining some additional, non-compulsory stimulus) rather than employer-inflicted duress.</p>

<p>The rationale and decision for acceptance of those conditions reflects that you knowingly exercised your <em>freedom of contract</em>. A party is not entitled to void a contract only because he belatedly changed his mind about conditions of which he was aware beforehand.</p>

<p>If this were English Language SE, I'd suggest "Hobson's choice" or "exploitative" (not making a judgment as to whether it actually is exploitative, just saying that "exploitative" describes how you feel about it), but since you are asking for a legal term, there's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract#Contracts_of_adhesion" rel="noreferrer">contract of adhesion</a>, which is a contract that is presented with no negotiation allowed and an imbalance of power. A contract of adhesion is not necessarily void. And here, there is no need to appeal to any such concept to void the contract, as you are free to do so unilaterally by quitting. If you want to void the part about having to return the money, but not void the part of getting the money in the first place, that's not how contract law generally works.  </p>

united-kingdom employment