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.
SB2628 creates the “Fair Background Check and Due Process Act” and limits how criminal background information may be used in employment, housing, and licensing decisions. The bill defines a “non-conviction record” broadly to include arrests, charges, indictments, pending cases, dismissed cases, diverted cases, and cases resolved with a nolle prosequi. It then prohibits consumer reporting agencies from reporting those non-conviction records to employers, landlords, or licensing agencies, except when the matter involves an excluded offense.
The bill allows reporting only for convictions, guilty pleas, and certain serious or job-related offenses. Its list of excluded offenses includes theft, fraud, financial crimes, embezzlement, forgery, murder or attempted murder, aggravated homicide-related offenses, and violent conduct directly related to job safety. It also preserves an employer’s ability to interview applicants, ask about relevant job-related conduct, and comply with federal background-check requirements for licensing.
The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated by adding new restrictions in Title 38 governing criminal history background reports used for employment, housing, and licensing. In practice, it would limit the information consumer reporting agencies may disclose, reducing the use of arrest and other non-conviction records in screening decisions while preserving reporting for convictions and specified serious offenses. The measure would affect background screening companies, employers, landlords, licensing agencies, and job applicants or tenants with pending or unresolved criminal matters.
The bill’s stated purpose reflects a generally sympathetic view toward people harmed by background checks based on unresolved criminal accusations, emphasizing due process, fairness, and the economic harms of denying work or housing before conviction. At the same time, the bill acknowledges employer and public-safety concerns by carving out serious offenses and job-related violent conduct. With no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available text suggests a reform-oriented but balanced approach rather than a clearly documented partisan or procedural controversy.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between protecting individuals from the consequences of unproven allegations and preserving employer, landlord, and licensing authority to screen for risk. Supporters would focus on due process, reduced poverty and homelessness, and limiting punishment before conviction, while opponents may argue that restricting access to arrest and pending-case information could hinder safety, fraud prevention, and risk management. The bill’s exceptions for theft, fraud, violent conduct, and other serious offenses appear designed to address those concerns, but the scope of the reporting ban on non-conviction records remains the central policy dispute.