I work in a performance field in which the group of performers and casting people is so small that “everyone knows everyone.” As a result, I recently found myself in a difficult contractual situation, and I wonder if I was ethically obligated to make the disclosure I did or if there was a better way to handle it.

I was under contract with a large European company that included an exclusive-option provision for the next season, though there was no monetary compensation attached to it. I was told that it was most likely unenforceable, but also that completely ignoring the option would make getting future work in the field difficult. When I inquired about the next season, I didn’t get a definitive answer, so I began to look for future work. I was offered a contract with a United States company, but its schedule conflicted with the European season. The United States contract included a 90-day probationary period during which I could leave without penalty or the company could fire me without penalty. Neither contract was a union contract.

I received conflicting advice: Some said I should just sign the new contract and back out of it if the European company exercised the option. Others said the right thing to do was to explain to both and get an answer from the European company. I chose the latter; the outcome was not good. The United States company was angry I had even sought a job. The European company wouldn’t give me a timely answer. When they finally said they didn’t need me, it was too late to take the United States contract. The end result of “taking the high road”: no work for me.

Should I have said nothing? Was I ethically obligated to raise the option? Or did I have no choice because the individuals involved knew one another?

To me, this situation raises other issues: how companies take advantage of young performers with limited opportunities and only a short period of their lives when they can perform as they do, as well as on why performers’ unions exist, whatever their limitations. When you don’t have an agent and have to negotiate on your own, you really have no leverage. Was there another way?

Name Withheld

In many fields, employers exploit the vulnerabilities of potential employees by imposing on them conditions that are hard to refuse. “Noncompete” and “no poach” clauses, notoriously, restrict the mobility of workers and depress their wages. Employers can get away with conduct that would be regarded as unprofessional in fields with a more even balance of power between management and talent. Even with an agent, you’d probably find that where there are lots of talented people and few opportunities, the cards are mainly in the hands of the execs doing the hiring.

The general moral requirement that we keep our promises is not easily waived. Yet coercion — the imposition of morally illegitimate pressures on others — undermines the moral weight of an agreement. If, for instance, I extract a promise from you by threatening to reveal something you told me in confidence, you should feel free to break that promise if you can get away with it.

Where your obligations are unclear, an assessment of consequences is in order. Much here depends on the details: Would the American company have been significantly harmed if the European company had wanted to exercise the option and you had to leave? If we’re talking about a minor inconvenience, as seems most likely, you would probably have been justified in ignoring a clause you had no ability to reject or adjust. You’d still have had to worry that taking “the low road” would be discovered and your reputation damaged (or even that you might be sued). This, however, is a matter not of ethics but of prudence./•/