Tennessee Senate Bill SB0279

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/24/25
• Engrossed: 3/17/25
• Enrolled: 4/16/25
• Passed: 4/24/25
• Chaptered: 4/29/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 33, relative to military service.

Summary

SB0279 makes a narrow amendment to Tennessee’s military service employment protections in Title 8, Chapter 33. The bill adds a definition of “working day” to Tennessee Code Annotated § 8-33-101, defining it as the number of hours an employee is scheduled to work in a twenty-four-hour period. Because the bill only adds a definition, it does not itself create a new benefit or entitlement, but it clarifies how the term “working day” should be understood anywhere that term is used in the military-service employment statutes. That clarification could affect how employers, employees, and courts calculate leave, reinstatement, or other time-based rights tied to military service under Tennessee law.

Impact

The bill amends Title 8, Chapter 33 of the Tennessee Code Annotated by inserting a statutory definition for “working day.” Its practical effect is to standardize interpretation of that term within the state’s military service-related employment provisions, reducing ambiguity for employers and service members when applying the law. No other statutes are changed directly, and the bill appears to be a technical clarification rather than a substantive policy expansion.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong support for the bill. The Senate State & Local Government Committee recommended passage on a 7-0 vote, and the floor motion to adopt passed 32-0. With no committee transcript available, there is no recorded debate indicating opposition or controversy, and the unanimous votes suggest the bill was viewed as a straightforward clarification.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The only potential point of interpretation is the meaning of “working day” in military-service employment contexts, since defining it as scheduled hours in a twenty-four-hour period could affect how time is counted under related leave or employment protections. However, the unanimous committee and floor votes indicate that any such issue did not generate visible opposition.