Panel approves DOHR rule broadening EEO‑plan language to align with federal executive order; debate centers on scope and data tracking

The Joint Government Operations Committee on Sept. 17 recommended adoption of a permanent rule from the Tennessee Department of Human Resources that broadens the state’s definition of an equal employment opportunity (EEO) plan. Agency officials said the change is intended to align the state's rule language with Presidential Executive Order 14173 and to ensure the state remains compliant with federal funding requirements.

Eric Mayo, senior policy adviser for the Department of Human Resources, said the rule expands the definition of an EEO plan so Tennessee state government “remains consistent with the executive order from President Trump as well as any other federal or state laws that are on the books.” The department’s deputy counsel, Melanie Koehler, explained that the state retains statutory obligations to conduct EEO planning for veterans and individuals with disabilities under federal law (for example, the Rehabilitation Act and related veterans' statutes), but the change removes the requirement to track women and minorities previously required under older federal executive orders.

Committee members pressed agency officials on process and the legal basis for translating a presidential executive order into a permanent state administrative rule. Representative McKenzie asked whether the state routinely converts executive orders into permanent rules and whether the change could set a precedent; Department staff said this rule updates existing regulatory language to reflect current federal requirements and to provide flexibility for future changes.

Representative Clemens and others raised concerns about substituting specific category names with broader terms, arguing that vague language can reduce transparency and limit oversight for groups such as veterans and individuals with disabilities. Department officials repeatedly said the rule will continue to require tracking and affirmative steps for veterans and individuals with disabilities, while removing tracking obligations tied to the older federal order that included women and minorities.

The committee recorded a contested Senate roll call and a voice vote in the House. In the Senate the clerk reported a tally of five ayes and three noes; the House approved by voice vote. Multiple members used the hearing to debate policy rationale and the potential practical effects of narrowing reporting categories; the department said public records and personnel data remain available on request and the department will use data when required for reporting or to address under‑utilization where federal or state requirements apply.

The committee's positive recommendation advances the rule to final adoption steps; the department said it would continue to work with stakeholders and respond to follow‑up questions from members, including requests for clarity on specific statutory and procedural points.