AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 37; Title 38; Title 39; Title 40; Title 47; Title 50; Title 62; Title 66 and Title 71, relative to the Fair Background Check and Due Process Act.
HB2346 creates the “Fair Background Check and Due Process Act” and limits what criminal history information consumer reporting agencies may provide to employers, landlords, and licensing agencies. The bill defines a “non-conviction record” broadly to include arrests, charges, indictments, pending cases, dismissed cases, diverted cases, and cases resolved by nolle prosequi, and generally bars reporting those records unless the charge is an excluded offense. Under the bill, only charges that result in a guilty verdict or guilty plea may be reported, with exceptions for certain serious offenses such as theft, fraud, financial crimes, embezzlement, forgery, murder, attempted murder, aggravated homicide-related offenses, and violent conduct directly related to job safety.
The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated across multiple titles by adding a new section governing criminal background reporting for employment, housing, and licensing purposes. It would restrict consumer reporting agencies from disclosing most non-conviction records, thereby limiting the use of arrests and unresolved criminal cases in screening decisions, while preserving reporting for specified excluded offenses and allowing employers to interview applicants, ask about relevant job-related conduct, and comply with federal licensing background-check requirements. The practical effect would be to reduce the availability of certain criminal history information in private background checks and to narrow the circumstances under which such information can be used to deny jobs, housing, or licenses.
The bill’s stated purpose reflects a pro-reform, due-process-oriented approach, emphasizing fairness for people with pending or unresolved criminal matters and concern about the economic harms of background-check denials. At the same time, the bill acknowledges employer and public-safety interests by carving out serious offenses and job-safety-related violent conduct. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or vote history to indicate broader support or opposition beyond the bill’s text.
The main point of contention is the balance between protecting individuals from collateral consequences of unproven allegations and preserving employers’ and licensing agencies’ ability to screen for risk. Supporters would likely emphasize due process, reduced poverty and homelessness, and the unfairness of punishing people before conviction, while opponents may argue that limiting access to non-conviction records could reduce workplace, housing, or public-safety protections and make it harder to identify risk in sensitive positions. The bill addresses that tension by exempting certain serious offenses and allowing job-related questioning and federally required checks.