AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 50, relative to employer retaliation.
HB2213, titled the “Anti-Retaliation for Reporting Unsafe Work Act,” expands Tennessee’s retaliatory discharge protections for employees. It prohibits an employer from firing, terminating, demoting, threatening to do so, or reporting an employee’s immigration status primarily because the employee reported unsafe working conditions, wage theft, or other labor violations. The bill also preserves existing protections for employees who refuse to participate in or remain silent about illegal activities.
The bill creates an explicit civil cause of action for employees who are harmed by these forms of retaliation. A prevailing employee could seek reinstatement, back pay, punitive damages in cases of willful, malicious, or reckless conduct, and an award of reasonable court costs and attorney fees. The bill also clarifies the burden-shifting framework in retaliatory discharge cases, including cases involving reporting unsafe conditions, wage theft, or other labor violations, and states that these rules apply at all stages of litigation, including summary judgment.
HB2213 would amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 50-1-304, by broadening the state’s retaliatory discharge statute to cover retaliation tied to reporting unsafe workplaces, wage theft, and other labor violations, and by addressing employer threats to report immigration status. It would also codify remedies and litigation standards for these claims, affecting employers, employees, and courts handling employment retaliation disputes. The act applies only to causes of action arising on or after July 1, 2026.
The available vote history suggests the bill had at least some support in committee, passing the House Banking and Consumer Affairs Subcommittee by a 5-2 vote and being recommended for referral to the Commerce Committee. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader support or opposition. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a worker-protection measure with some bipartisan or cross-committee interest, but not unanimous agreement.
The main points of contention likely center on the bill’s expansion of employer liability and employee remedies. Employers may object to the added exposure for punitive damages, attorney fees, and reinstatement, as well as the inclusion of wage theft and other labor violations within the retaliation statute. Another sensitive issue is the provision restricting employers from reporting an employee’s immigration status as retaliation, though the bill carves out compliance with federal immigration requirements and actions otherwise required by law. Supporters would likely emphasize workplace safety, wage enforcement, and protection against intimidation, while opponents may focus on litigation risk and compliance burdens.