AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 50, relative to employer retaliation.
SB2392, titled the "Anti-Retaliation for Reporting Unsafe Work Act," would expand Tennessee’s retaliatory discharge protections for employees. The bill prohibits employers from firing, terminating, demoting, or threatening to take those actions against an employee primarily because the employee reported unsafe working conditions, wage theft, or other labor violations. It also continues existing protections for employees who refuse to participate in or remain silent about illegal activities.
The bill further addresses immigration-related retaliation by barring employers from reporting an employee’s immigration status, or threatening to do so, as a retaliatory measure tied to protected reporting activity. It preserves exceptions where an employer is otherwise required by law to act or is acting in good-faith compliance with federal immigration requirements. Employees who prevail could recover reinstatement, back pay, punitive damages in cases of willful, malicious, or reckless conduct, and attorney’s fees and court costs.
SB2392 would amend Tennessee Code Annotated § 50-1-304, broadening the state’s retaliatory discharge statute to expressly cover complaints about unsafe workplaces, wage theft, and other labor violations, in addition to existing protections for reporting illegal activity. It would create or clarify a civil cause of action for employees subjected to retaliatory discharge or related conduct, and it would authorize remedies including reinstatement, back pay, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. The bill also changes the burden-of-proof framework in retaliation cases, including at the summary judgment stage, by outlining how plaintiffs and employers must present evidence once a prima facie case is made.
Based on the bill text and the absence of committee transcripts or recorded votes, the available context suggests the measure is framed as a worker-protection and anti-retaliation bill rather than a controversial regulatory overhaul. Its stated purpose and remedies indicate support for employees reporting unsafe conditions or labor abuses. No formal discussion or vote history is provided here to show opposition or amendment activity.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s expansion of employer liability and the inclusion of immigration-status reporting as a prohibited retaliatory tactic. Employers may view the new protected categories, punitive damages exposure, and attorney-fee shifting as increasing litigation risk and compliance burdens. The burden-shifting language may also be debated, especially because it applies throughout the case, including summary judgment. On the other hand, worker advocates would likely support the broader protections for reporting unsafe work, wage theft, and other labor violations, as well as the explicit remedies and anti-immigration-retaliation safeguards.