Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employment Law Emergency Powers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill declaring lawful occupations "essential" and allowing legal remedy for declarations of "nonessential" during emergencies
Summary
House Bill 5 62, which would prevent government from declaring lawful occupations "nonessential" during emergencies and allow civil remedies, advanced out of committee after several lawmakers and witnesses described hardships from COVID‑era closures.
House Bill 5 62 advanced to Calendar and Rules on a 12‑to‑5 vote with 5 members present but not voting. The bill, sponsored by Representative Fritz, would prohibit political subdivisions or public officials from prohibiting the operation of a lawful occupation by labeling it "nonessential" during a declared state of emergency, and it provides civil remedies for people prevented from carrying out lawful work.
Representative Fritz said the bill grew out of stories from barbers, cosmetologists and small business owners who lost income when some occupations were restricted during the COVID‑19 emergency. She framed the bill as protecting the right to earn a living and restoring recourse for workers who suffered financial harm.
The committee heard extended testimony and questions. Several members described the emotional and economic impact on constituents; Representative Carringer recounted a personal family example involving a cosmetologist and a salon owner who were financially harmed. Some members raised public‑safety concerns during emergencies. Patrick Sheehan, director of the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency and testifying on behalf of the governor, said the bill as written could be read broadly and might create liability or constrain local authorities’ ability to exclude outsiders from disaster zones (for example, to control looting or preserve scene security after a wildfire).
Legal counsel clarified statutory language: the bill specifically bars orders that declare an occupation nonessential during a declared emergency; it does not prevent cordoning off a disaster area for safety. Committee debate included questions about whether local emergency steps to protect public health and safety (for example, restricting access to dangerous zones) could be interpreted as a proscribed “nonessential” order. The committee ultimately advanced the bill.
Supporters argued the bill is intended to give individuals a civil remedy if officials improperly shut down lawful work; opponents and agency witnesses urged careful drafting to avoid unintended consequences in active disaster response. The bill moves on to the calendar where further review and amendments are possible.
