AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, relative to criminal liability.
Summary
HB0989 requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to compile and report data on prosecutions for a specific criminal offense: an employer dismissing an employee because of that employee’s jury service, which is a Class A misdemeanor under Tennessee law. The report must be delivered to the speakers of the House and Senate by October 1, 2025, and must cover the number of people found guilty of that offense from January 1, 1990 through January 1, 2025.
The bill does not change the underlying criminal statute or create a new penalty. Instead, it is a reporting measure aimed at gathering historical enforcement data related to employer retaliation against employees for serving on juries. Its practical effect is to direct the courts’ administrative office to review and summarize long-term conviction data for this offense.
Impact
HB0989 affects Tennessee Code Annotated Title 39 only indirectly by referencing the existing misdemeanor offense in Section 39-16-514. It imposes a one-time administrative reporting duty on the Administrative Office of the Courts, requiring collection and disclosure of statewide conviction counts for a 35-year period. The bill does not alter criminal liability, sentencing, or employer obligations, but it may inform future legislative oversight or policy decisions regarding jury-service protections.
Sentiment
Based on the text provided, the bill appears neutral and administrative in nature, with no recorded committee debate, votes, or amendments indicating opposition or support. Because it simply requests a historical report, the measure is likely to be viewed as low-conflict and informational rather than controversial. The absence of voting history or transcript discussion suggests there was no notable public disagreement captured in the available materials.
Contention
There are no documented points of contention in the provided record. If any concerns were raised, they would most likely relate to the administrative burden of compiling decades of conviction data or the usefulness of the report, but no such objections appear in the available transcripts or vote history. The bill’s narrow scope and lack of substantive policy change likely limited controversy.