AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8 and Title 50, relative to employment-related mental health evaluations.
Summary
HB2016 requires employers that condition employment or continued employment on a mental health evaluation to give the employee or applicant reasonable access to the evaluation results, including any report prepared by a mental health professional or other evaluator. The bill defines “employee” and “employer” for purposes of the new section and expressly includes the state and its political subdivisions as employers.
If an employer denies access, the affected employee or prospective employee may file a private lawsuit seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. A prevailing employee is entitled to reasonable court costs and attorney fees. The bill takes effect immediately upon becoming law.
Impact
The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 50 by adding a new employment-law provision governing access to mental health evaluation records used in hiring or employment decisions. It creates a statutory right of access for employees and applicants, imposes a corresponding disclosure obligation on employers, and authorizes enforcement through private civil action. Because the definition of employer includes state and local government entities, the measure would apply to public-sector as well as private-sector employment practices.
Sentiment
There is no committee transcript or recorded vote history provided, so the available context does not show organized support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at transparency and employee access to information used in employment decisions, which suggests a consumer- or worker-protection orientation. No recorded debate is available to indicate whether the measure was controversial or broadly accepted.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the balance between employee access to evaluation results and employer control over sensitive mental health information. Employers may be concerned about confidentiality, administrative burden, or the scope of disclosure, while employees and applicants may support the bill as a fairness and transparency measure. Another possible issue is the inclusion of public employers, which could raise questions about how the requirement interacts with existing personnel, privacy, and records policies.