AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 21; Title 9; Title 62 and Title 63, relative to state entities.
HB0376 would prohibit certain state-entity boards in Tennessee from excluding or discriminating against people on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, or national origin. The bill applies to boards governing state entities created under Titles 62 and 63 and bars race-based policies affecting board composition, including affirmative action, racial preferences, racial quotas, and the use of aggregated demographic data to make membership or participation decisions.
The bill also creates a private right of action for people harmed by a violation, allowing suits against the board and, in some cases, officers, employees, or agents. Plaintiffs could recover actual or compensatory damages, punitive damages in cases of intentional or reckless discrimination, injunctive and declaratory relief, and a minimum of $4,000 in statutory damages. The bill further waives sovereign immunity for these actions, making the state and covered entities more directly exposed to litigation.
HB0376 would add new anti-discrimination provisions to Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 62 and 63, specifically targeting the governing boards of state entities created under those titles. It would restrict how those boards consider race, ethnicity, and related characteristics in membership and participation decisions, and it would prohibit race-based board composition policies. The bill also expands potential legal liability by creating a private cause of action, authorizing damages and equitable relief, and waiving sovereign immunity for covered claims.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or partisan division in the available record. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to reflect a strong policy preference against race-conscious governance practices and for race-neutral board selection rules. The absence of voting history or discussion prevents a reliable assessment of broader legislative support or opposition.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s prohibition on affirmative action, racial preferences, racial quotas, and the use of aggregated demographic data in board composition decisions. Supporters would likely view these provisions as ensuring equal treatment and preventing discrimination, while opponents may argue that they restrict diversity efforts or limit the ability of state entities to address historical underrepresentation. Another likely flashpoint is the private cause of action and waiver of sovereign immunity, which expose boards and state actors to lawsuits, damages, and statutory penalties.