Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-102 (2026)
False or deceptive representations in procuring employees - Penalty - Hiring armed guards - Failure to have permit - Penalty
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a)
- (1) It is unlawful for any person to induce, influence, persuade or engage workers to change from one place to another in this state, or to bring workers of any class or calling into this state to work in any type of labor in this state through or by means of false or deceptive representations, false advertising or false pretenses, concerning the kind and character of the work to be done, or the amount and character of compensation to be paid for the work, or the sanitary or other conditions of the employment, or as to the existence or nonexistence of a strike or other trouble pending between employer and employees, at the time of or prior to the engagement.
- (2) Failure to state in any advertisement, proposal or contract for the employment of workers that there is a strike, lockout or other labor trouble at the place of the proposed employment, when in fact the strike, lockout or other labor trouble then actually exists at the place of the proposed employment, is deemed false advertising and misrepresentation for the purposes of this section.
- (b) A violation of subsection (a) is a Class B misdemeanor.
- (c)
- (1) Any worker who is influenced, induced or persuaded to engage with any persons mentioned in subsection (a), through or by means of any of the things prohibited in subsection (a), has a right of action for all damages that the worker has sustained in consequence of the false or deceptive representations, false advertising, and false pretenses used to induce the worker to change the worker's place of employment, against any person who, directly or indirectly, causes the damage.
- (2) In addition to all actual damages the worker may have sustained, the worker is entitled to recover such reasonable attorney's fees as the court shall fix, to be taxed as costs.
- (d)
- (1) Any person who, in this or another state, hires, aids, abets, or assists in hiring, through agencies or otherwise, persons to guard with arms or deadly weapons of any kind for any such purpose, without a permit from the governor of this state, commits a Class E felony.
- (2) Nothing contained in subdivision (d)(1) shall be construed to interfere with the right of any person, in guarding or protecting the person's private property or private interests, as is now provided by law.
- (e) This section shall be construed only to apply in cases where workers are brought into this state, or induced to go from one place to another in this state by any false pretenses, false advertising or deceptive representations, or brought into this state under arms, or removed from one place to another in this state under arms.
Acts 1901, ch. 104, §§ 1-4; Shan., §§ 6886a1-6886a4; Code 1932, §§ 11363-11366; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), §§ 50-204 -- 50-207; Acts 1989, ch. 591, §§ 45, 112.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: Chavez v. Broadway Elec. Serv. Corp., 245 S.W.3d 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007).
Chavez v. Broadway Elec. Serv. Corp., 245 S.W.3d 398 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “Davy sued BESCO, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel (also known as detrimental reliance), and violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-1-102. After a bench trial, the trial court held that Mr.”
Vintage Health Resources, Inc. v. Guiangan, 309 S.W.3d 448 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “This argument is based on the variance between the recruitment packet and the Agreement regarding Mr. Guiangan's housing and the variance between the Agreement and the living stipend regarding Mr.”
Gilinsky v. Marcus & Millichap Real Est. Inv. Servs. of Seattle, Inc. (M.D. Tenn. 2021). “M&M’s Nashville Office Defendant Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services of Seattle, Inc. (“M&M”) is a commercial real estate firm with an office in Nashville.”
Evans v. Nashville Film Inst., LLC (M.D. Tenn. 2022). “rimination, he cannot show that NFI’s proffered legitimate explanation for its action is pretextual; (4) the plaintiff cannot establish “exceptional circumstances” that would permit him to prevail on a promissory estoppel claim raised in the context of an employment dispute; and…”
Amos v. Lampo Grp., LLC, The (M.D. Tenn. 2023). “§ 4-21-101 et seq; in Count IV for fraud under Tennessee law based on a number of alleged false statements; in Count V based on promissory estoppel; and in Count VI based on deceptive representations and promises in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-102 . More specifically,…”
Jeffrey P. Hopmayer v. Aladdin Indus., L.L.C. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “Hopmayer amended his complaint to add a claim that Hopmayer was induced to work for Aladdin by false and deceptive representations in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-102 (1999). The case was tried on March 12, 2003.”
Brewer v. United Wisconsin Ins., 972 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (2013). “The Court addresses Defendant’s arguments in turn.”
Edward Risher v. Cherokee Buick-Pontiac-Oldsmobile (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “Plaintiff sued for breach of contract, detrimental reliance, and violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-102 . The jury returned a verdict in Plaintiff’s favor, and judgment was entered on this verdict.”
Grissim v. Powell Const. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “The plaintiff also sought damages pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-1-102, alleging that he was induced by false or deceptive statements to accept employment by the defendant.”
Martinez v. First Class Interiors of Naples, LLC (M.D. Tenn. 2019). “Plaintiffs further claim that after members of the Last Paycheck Class requested their wages, First Class Defendants 3 Plaintiffs also bring causes of action under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-102 (Fraud in Hiring) and 26 U.”
Frank Shipp v. Ditch Witch Equip. of Tennessee, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-102 (2005). Ditch Witch filed an answer denying the allegations in the complaint, and also filed a counterclaim against Shipp, alleging that he owed Ditch Witch $758.”
Louis Federico v. Aladdin Indus. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “-5- As to Plaintiff’s claim that Aladdin violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-102 , the Trial Court stated there was “no creditable evidence” that Aladdin made any misrepresentations.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-102(a)(1): 1 case
Grissim v. Powell Const. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). “The plaintiff also sought damages pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-1-102, alleging that he was induced by false or deceptive statements to accept employment by the defendant.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-102(c)(1): 2 cases
Gilinsky v. Marcus & Millichap Real Est. Inv. Servs. of Seattle, Inc. (M.D. Tenn. 2021). “M&M’s Nashville Office Defendant Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services of Seattle, Inc. (“M&M”) is a commercial real estate firm with an office in Nashville.”
Evans v. Nashville Film Inst., LLC (M.D. Tenn. 2022). “rimination, he cannot show that NFI’s proffered legitimate explanation for its action is pretextual; (4) the plaintiff cannot establish “exceptional circumstances” that would permit him to prevail on a promissory estoppel claim raised in the context of an employment dispute; and…”
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.