AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 8 and Title 68, relative to human rights.
HB0910 is a broad rewrite of Tennessee’s human rights and civil rights enforcement laws. It replaces the existing Tennessee Human Rights Commission structure with a new Civil Rights Enforcement Division in the Office of the Attorney General and Reporter, and it transfers most complaint intake, investigation, conciliation, enforcement, and recordkeeping functions from the commission to the attorney general beginning July 1, 2025. The bill also sets up a transition process for pending cases, existing orders, and conciliation agreements, and it dissolves the commission at the end of the 2024-2025 fiscal year.
Substantively, the bill restates and expands Tennessee’s anti-discrimination provisions across employment, public accommodations, housing, education, retaliation, malicious harassment, and state-funded activities. It preserves protections based on race, color, creed, religion, sex, age, national origin, disability, and familial status in many contexts, while also adding detailed procedures for investigations, hearings, civil penalties, private lawsuits, and judicial review. It also amends related statutes on disability discrimination, Title VI compliance for state agencies receiving federal funds, and certain state personnel and reporting requirements.
The bill significantly restructures state civil rights enforcement by moving authority from the Tennessee Human Rights Commission to the attorney general and by creating new statutory procedures for complaints, investigations, penalties, and private rights of action. It amends multiple titles of the Tennessee Code, including Title 4, Title 8, and Title 68, and repeals or revises provisions tied to the commission’s existence, staffing, and jurisdiction. Affected parties include employers, labor organizations, housing providers, schools, state agencies, public accommodations, and individuals alleging discrimination or retaliation.
The bill appears to have advanced with majority support at each committee stage and on the floor, but with notable opposition throughout the process. Committee votes were generally favorable but not unanimous, and the floor votes show a meaningful minority voting no, suggesting the measure was supported by enough members to pass but remained controversial. The absence of committee transcript excerpts limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting pattern indicates the bill was broadly viable while still divisive.
The main point of contention is the shift in civil rights enforcement from an independent commission to the attorney general’s office, which changes institutional control, oversight, and case handling. Another likely area of dispute is the bill’s detailed enforcement scheme, including civil penalties, investigative powers, and the treatment of pending commission cases, which may raise concerns about due process, access to remedies, and administrative continuity. The bill also touches on sensitive policy areas such as sex segregation in certain facilities, housing protections, and state compliance with Title VI, any of which could draw differing views from supporters and opponents.