Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 (2026)
Purpose and intent
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is the purpose and intent of the general assembly by this chapter to:
- (1) Provide for execution within Tennessee of the policies embodied in the federal Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1968 and 1972, the Pregnancy Amendment of 1978 ( 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) ), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ( 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.);
- (2) Assure that Tennessee has appropriate legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment, public accommodations and housing sufficient to justify the deferral of cases by the federal equal employment opportunity commission, the department of housing and urban development, the secretary of labor and the department of justice under those statutes;
- (3) Safeguard all individuals within the state from discrimination because of race, creed, color, religion, sex, age or national origin in connection with employment and public accommodations, and because of race, color, creed, religion, sex or national origin in connection with housing;
- (4) Protect their interest in personal dignity and freedom from humiliation;
- (5) Make available to the state their full productive capacity in employment;
- (6) Secure the state against domestic strife and unrest that would menace its democratic institutions;
- (7) Preserve the public safety, health and general welfare; and
- (8) Further the interest, rights, opportunities and privileges of individuals within the state.
- (b) The prohibitions in this chapter against discrimination because of age in connection with employment and public accommodations shall be limited to individuals who are at least forty (40) years of age.
Acts 1978, ch. 748, § 2; T.C.A., § 4-2101; Acts 1980, ch. 732, §§ 1-4; 1984, ch. 1007, § 1; 1986, ch. 807, § 1; 1988, ch. 714, § 6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 363
cases (56 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Arnett v. Domino's Pizza I, L.L.C., 124 S.W.3d 529 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
Arnett v. Domino's Pizza I, L.L.C., 124 S.W.3d 529 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “Ninety-two plaintiffs filed a claim against Domino’s Pizza alleging violations of Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-101, et seq. (The Tennessee Human Rights Act), 42 U.”
Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-101. The intent of the THRA is to provide for execution within Tennessee of the policies embodied in the federal civil rights statutes.”
Wilson v. Rubin, 104 S.W.3d 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 (a)(3). In light of the intended overlap in purpose between the Tennessee Human Rights Act and federal anti-discrimination laws, Tennessee’s courts regularly consult the decisions of their federal counterparts for guidance when called upon to construe…”
Mitch Goree v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 490 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “This appeal involves two employees’ claims of racial discrimination and retaliation pursuant to the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-101, et seq. After a five-day jury trial, the jury found in favor of both employees on their claims of racial discrimination and…”
Williams v. Greater Chattanooga Pub. Television Corp., 349 S.W.3d 501 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). “Plaintiffs alleged that they were discriminated against and terminated by WTCI because of their age, and sought benefits and damages for that discrimination, pursuant to Tenn Code Ann. § 4-21-101 et seq., the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA).”
Kimberly Powell v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 312 S.W.3d 496 (Tenn. 2010). “She sought to recover damages for violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act [ Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 to -1001 (2005 & Supp.”
Harman v. Moore's Quality Snack Foods, Inc., 815 S.W.2d 519 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “Their complaint alleged that defendant by its unlawful actions had discriminated against plaintiff in violation of the provisions of T.C.A. § 4-21-101, et seq., known as the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”).”
Moore v. Nashville Elec. Power Bd., 72 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Cordero, Jimmy Darylripple, Don Kohanski, Kate Tallmadge, and Gary Murray, individually, for violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, T.C.A. § 4-21-101 et seq., by discriminating against them because of their age and thereby denying them promotions.”
Bredesen v. Tennessee Jud. Selection Comm'n, 214 S.W.3d 419 (Tenn. 2007). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-101 (2005). In addition, Lewis relies upon section 4-21-401(a), which states that “[i]t is a discriminatory practice for an employer to” do the following: (1) Fail or refuse to hire or discharge any person or otherwise to discriminate against an individual…”
Larry Sneed v. The City of Red Bank, Tennessee, 459 S.W.3d 17 (Tenn. 2014). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(1) (2011); see also Parker v.”
Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000). “1998); Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 et seq. (1998); Tex.”
Bruce v. W. Auto Supply Co., 669 S.W.2d 95 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984). “filed his complaint against defendant Western Auto Supply Company (Western Auto) and alleged that he was terminated from his employment with Western Auto solely because of his age in violation of T.C.A. § 4-21-101 et seq. At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(1998) — 1 case
Arnett v. Domino's Pizza I, L.L.C., 124 S.W.3d 529 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “Ninety-two plaintiffs filed a claim against Domino’s Pizza alleging violations of Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-101, et seq. (The Tennessee Human Rights Act), 42 U.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(3) — 1 case
Jerry Moore v. NES (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a) — 9 cases
Harman v. Moore's Quality Snack Foods, Inc., 815 S.W.2d 519 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “Their complaint alleged that defendant by its unlawful actions had discriminated against plaintiff in violation of the provisions of T.C.A. § 4-21-101, et seq., known as the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”).”
Austin v. Shelby Cnty. Gov't, 3 S.W.3d 474 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
Reagan v. City of Knoxville, 692 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. Tenn. 2010).
Payne v. Goodman Mfg. Co., 726 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. Tenn. 2010).
Bundy v. First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 266 S.W.3d 410 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(1) — 26 cases
Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W.2d 26 (Tenn. 1996).
Phillips v. Interstate Hotels Corp., 974 S.W.2d 680 (Tenn. 1998).
Larry Sneed v. The City of Red Bank, Tennessee, 459 S.W.3d 17 (Tenn. 2014). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(1) (2011); see also Parker v.”
Wilson v. Rubin, 104 S.W.3d 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 (a)(3). In light of the intended overlap in purpose between the Tennessee Human Rights Act and federal anti-discrimination laws, Tennessee’s courts regularly consult the decisions of their federal counterparts for guidance when called upon to construe…”
Jim Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State Univ., 451 S.W.3d 375 (Tenn. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(2) — 1 case
Reagan v. City of Knoxville, 692 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. Tenn. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(3) — 7 cases
Wilson v. Rubin, 104 S.W.3d 39 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101 (a)(3). In light of the intended overlap in purpose between the Tennessee Human Rights Act and federal anti-discrimination laws, Tennessee’s courts regularly consult the decisions of their federal counterparts for guidance when called upon to construe…”
Moore v. Nashville Elec. Power Bd., 72 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “Cordero, Jimmy Darylripple, Don Kohanski, Kate Tallmadge, and Gary Murray, individually, for violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, T.C.A. § 4-21-101 et seq., by discriminating against them because of their age and thereby denying them promotions.”
Larry Sneed v. The City of Red Bank, Tennessee, 459 S.W.3d 17 (Tenn. 2014). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(1) (2011); see also Parker v.”
Killingsworth v. Ted Russell Ford, Inc., 205 S.W.3d 406 (Tenn. 2006).
Frame v. Davidson Transit Org., 194 S.W.3d 429 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(5) — 1 case
David R. Smith v. Tennessee Nat'l Guard, 387 S.W.3d 570 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(l) — 18 cases
Mitch Goree v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 490 S.W.3d 413 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “This appeal involves two employees’ claims of racial discrimination and retaliation pursuant to the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-21-101, et seq. After a five-day jury trial, the jury found in favor of both employees on their claims of racial discrimination and…”
Cooper v. MRM Inv. Co., 199 F. Supp. 2d 771 (M.D. Tenn. 2002).
Booker v. the Boeing Co., 188 S.W.3d 639 (Tenn. 2006).
Weber v. Moses, 938 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. 1996).
Spann v. Abraham, 36 S.W.3d 452 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(b) — 3 cases
Bundy v. First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 266 S.W.3d 410 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Hoge v. Roy H. Park Broad. of Tennessee, Inc., 673 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).
Fox v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp. Tipton, 148 S.W.3d 903 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.