Parental leave is a designated period intended to support the new parent in bonding with a child and managing care responsibilities. The time away from professional duties is protected, allowing the parent to focus fully on family needs without the pressure of job insecurity. Whether a parent can use this time to work another job is a common question, and the answer is rarely simple. The permissibility of secondary employment depends on a complex interaction of federal law, state statutes, company policy, and the specific nature of the leave being taken. Understanding these distinct layers of regulation is paramount before pursuing any alternative income during this protected time.
The Core Intent of Parental Leave
The foundational principle guiding parental leave policy is the requirement for focused care and attention to the new family member. This time is specifically allocated for bonding with a newborn or newly placed child, or for providing care related to the child’s health. The leave is meant to keep the employee from performing their regular job duties, ensuring they are available for the family unit.
Introducing secondary employment can directly conflict with this intended purpose. Policies against working elsewhere stem from the rationale that if an employee has sufficient time and capacity to earn income, they are not utilizing the leave for the stated, protected reason. This contradiction forms the basis for many of the legal and contractual restrictions governing activities while away from the primary role.
Federal and State Legal Frameworks for Leave
The legal baseline for job-protected leave in the United States is established by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). FMLA guarantees eligible employees up to twelve weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for reasons including the birth and care of a new child. FMLA regulations do not explicitly prohibit an employee from engaging in outside employment while on this unpaid leave. However, the law permits an employer to maintain a uniformly-applied policy regarding supplemental employment, which would continue to apply to an employee on FMLA leave.
This federal framework contrasts sharply with many state-level paid family leave (PFL) programs, which involve the payment of benefits. States that offer PFL, such as California and New York, often have strict statutory rules that prohibit working during the benefit period. Since these programs are designed as partial wage replacement, earning a significant income elsewhere can be viewed as benefit fraud or misuse of public funds. State PFL rules generally require that the parent is experiencing a wage loss due to the need to bond or provide care, making replacement income inconsistent with the benefit claim.
Employer Policies on Secondary Employment
While federal and state laws set the minimum standard, the most frequent and stringent restrictions come directly from the employer’s internal policies and employee handbook. Most companies maintain “moonlighting” or secondary employment clauses that apply to all employees, including those on leave. These policies often prohibit employees from holding a second job that could present a conflict of interest, compromise proprietary information, or distract from the employee’s primary professional commitment.
For an employer to enforce this policy against an employee on FMLA leave, the rule must be uniformly applied to all employees on equivalent types of leave, not just those using federal protection. This means the company cannot single out the employee for discipline unless the policy applies equally to those on general medical leave or other non-FMLA absences. Many organizations also have policies specifically addressing “gainful employment” while receiving company-provided benefits. These employer-specific handbooks often exceed the FMLA’s minimum requirements and represent the most common reason an employee might face disciplinary action for working during their time off.
The Critical Distinction Between Paid and Unpaid Leave
The financial nature of the leave significantly alters the risk profile for the employee seeking secondary income. If the leave is entirely unpaid, utilizing only the job protection provided by FMLA, the risk is primarily contractual, revolving around the violation of the company’s anti-moonlighting policy. In this scenario, the employer is concerned with the integrity of their general employment contract and the legitimacy of the leave request.
Conversely, if the leave is paid—either through a state PFL program or a private company benefit—working a second job is viewed much more seriously. When an employee is receiving paid time off, they are being compensated under the pretense that they are unavailable for work to fulfill the purpose of the leave. Earning income elsewhere while receiving this benefit can be interpreted as a misuse of company funds or, in the case of state benefits, as benefit fraud. This distinction substantially escalates the potential consequences, shifting the violation from a breach of contract to a matter involving potential dishonesty.
What Activities Qualify as “Working Another Job”
Defining what activities constitute “working another job” is crucial, as the scope extends beyond traditional W-2 employment with a different company. Courts and human resources departments typically consider any “gainful employment” as a violation of leave policy if the policy prohibits it. Gainful employment is generally defined as any productive activity that provides the individual with income.
This definition encompasses a wide range of activities, including significant freelance work, operating a side business, or remote contracting. The threshold is whether the activity is inconsistent with the stated reason for the leave. For example, if a parent claims to be unable to perform their primary role due to exhaustion from childcare, but then spends forty hours a week managing a complex side business, the two activities are contradictory. Even excessive engagement in professional duties for the primary employer, such as frequently checking email or taking calls, can be interpreted as inconsistent with the leave’s purpose.
Potential Consequences of Policy Violations
Violating a company’s secondary employment policy while on parental leave can lead to termination for cause. This can occur if the employer determines the employee fraudulently obtained the leave or violated a uniformly-applied policy. If the leave was paid, the employer may require the employee to repay any company-provided paid leave benefits received during the period of violation.
The consequences are compounded if the employee was receiving state-provided paid family leave benefits. In such cases, the employee could face administrative or legal action for fraudulently claiming public benefits. Furthermore, the employer is legally entitled to investigate potential misuse of leave, particularly if the secondary employment activity seems to contradict the purpose of the leave. An investigation can include monitoring social media activity or hiring private investigators, and a documented finding of dishonesty can severely damage a career.
Recommended Steps Before Seeking Secondary Income
Before an employee considers any form of secondary or supplemental income during parental leave, a thorough review of documentation is necessary. The employee must first carefully read their company’s employee handbook to locate any clauses pertaining to moonlighting, outside employment, and conduct while on leave. Understanding whether the leave is paid or unpaid, and the source of any benefits, is the next important step in assessing risk.
The safest course of action is to seek explicit, written permission from the employer’s Human Resources department detailing the nature and extent of the secondary work. Transparency is the only way to significantly mitigate the risk of policy violation or accusations of fraud. If permission is granted, it should clearly state that the secondary work does not violate any terms of the leave and will not jeopardize job protection or benefits.