Tennessee House Bill HB0427

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/25
• Refer: 2/5/25
• Refer: 3/12/25
• Refer: 3/4/26
• Refer: 4/1/26
• Chaptered: 4/28/26
• Passed: 4/28/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 8; Title 50; Title 56 and Title 68, relative to living organ donation.

Impact

If enacted, this bill will directly influence workplace policies concerning medical leave and the rights of employees who donate organs. By requiring employers to provide a structured leave policy for organ donation recovery, the law aims to alleviate some of the pressures faced by living organ donors. Additionally, it underscores a commitment to promoting organ donation by reducing the potential financial and job security concerns that might deter individuals from becoming donors.

Summary

House Bill 0427 aims to amend the Tennessee Code to provide employees who are living organ donors with guaranteed time off for recovery after their surgery. Specifically, the bill mandates that eligible employees are granted at least four weeks of absence, classified as full-time employment, to recover from such procedures. This is in addition to any other leave they may qualify for under existing laws. The bill also specifies what constitutes an 'eligible employee' and defines a 'living organ donor' for regulatory clarity.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB 0427 has been notably positive, with support from various advocacy groups promoting organ donation. Proponents argue that the bill enhances employee welfare and encourages life-saving medical procedures. However, there may be concerns among some employers regarding the additional obligations placed on them, which could lead to debates over the practical implications of such mandates. Overall, the discussion has been largely favorable towards supporting donor rights and healthcare initiatives.

Contention

While HB 0427 has broad support, notable contention may arise from the operational aspects of the mandate. Some opponents may argue that while the intent is noble, imposing such requirements could create challenges for businesses, particularly smaller employers who may struggle with the additional burden of employee absences. The potential financial impact on businesses may lead to discussions about appropriate safeguards or adjustments to ensure that both employee rights and employer capabilities are balanced.