Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103 (2026)
Employment of the disabled - Discrimination prohibited - Penalty - Complaint
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) This section and § 8-50-104 shall be known and may be cited as the "Tennessee Disability Act."
- (b) There shall be no discrimination in the hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment of the state of Tennessee or any department, agency, institution or political subdivision of the state, or of any private employer, against any applicant for employment based solely upon any physical, mental or visual disability of the applicant, unless such disability to some degree prevents the applicant from performing the duties required by the employment sought or impairs the performance of the work involved. Furthermore, no blind person shall be discriminated against in any such employment practices because such person uses a guide dog. A violation of this subsection (b) is a Class C misdemeanor.
- (c)
- (1) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by a discriminatory practice prohibited by this section may file with the Tennessee human rights commission a written sworn complaint stating that a discriminatory practice has been committed, setting forth the facts sufficient to enable the commission to identify the persons charged.
- (2) Upon receipt of such complaint, the commission shall follow the procedure and exercise the powers and duties provided in §§ 4-21-302 - 4-21-311, and the person shall have all rights provided therein.
- (d) For purposes of this section, "employer" means the state, or any political or civil subdivision thereof, and persons employing eight (8) or more persons within the state.
Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 995,s 3, eff. 7/1/2014.
Acts 1976, ch. 457, § 1; 1979, ch. 104, § 1; 1979, ch. 222, § 1; T.C.A., § 8-4131; Acts 1986, ch. 692, § 1; 1986, ch. 869, § 16; 1987, ch. 15, §§ 1, 2; 1989, ch. 591, § 113; 1990, ch. 773, § 1; 2008 , ch. 706, §§ 3, 5.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 108
cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Perlberg v. Brencor Asset Mgmt., Inc., 63 S.W.3d 390 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).
Perlberg v. Brencor Asset Mgmt., Inc., 63 S.W.3d 390 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “” After the trial court granted Brencor summary judgment, Perlberg filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, and, for the first time identified T.C.A. § 8-50-103 (1993), *392 the Tennessee Handicap Act (“THA”), as the statute under which he was pursuing his THRA claim.”
Cecil v. Gibson, 820 S.W.2d 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “Cecil filed suit in September, 1988 alleging that he was visually handicapped and that the City and the Commission had discriminated against him in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-50-103 (Supp.1990). The trial court found that Mr.”
Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006). “The THA, found in section 8-50-103, states in pertinent part: There shall be no discrimination in the hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment of the state of Tennessee or any department, agency, institution or political subdivision of the state, or of any…”
Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2000). “In September of 1991, Barnes filed suit against Goodyear pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-50-103, the Tennessee Handicap Act (“THA”).”
Fahrner v. SW Mfg., Inc., 48 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2001). “He also alleged that his discharge was in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-50-103. Fahrner's THRA claim is closely related to his retaliatory discharge claim in that both are based on SW Manufacturing's allegedly unlawful response to his…”
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 899 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2018). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103 (b). Filing a charge with the Tennessee Commission, as Atkins did here, thus entitled her to file the complaint with the federal Commission within 300 days of the discharge, and thus explains why the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission properly…”
Burress v. City of Franklin, 809 F. Supp. 2d 795 (M.D. Tenn. 2011). “§ 1983 (“§ 1983”) for violation of his equal-protection and due-process rights; the plaintiff also asserts state-law claims under the Tennessee Disability Act (“TDA”), Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-50-103, the Tennessee Human Rights Act (“THRA”), Tenn.”
Oliver v. Titlemax, 149 F. Supp. 3d 857 (E.D. Tenn. 2016). “moves the Court to dismiss for failing to state a claim plaintiffs claims for: failure to accommodate under the Tennessee Disability Act (“TDA”), Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103 ; discriminatory discharge under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the TDA; hostile work…”
Michael Fisher v. Nissan N.A., Inc., 951 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2020). “Fisher then filed suit against Nissan, bringing disability-related claims under the ADA and its state equivalent, the Tennessee Disability Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103 , as well as a No.”
Bower v. Fed. Express Corp., 156 F. Supp. 2d 678 (W.D. Tenn. 2001). “IV 1998); and the Tennessee Handicap Discrimination Act (“THDA”), Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-50-103 (1993). The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.”
Sasser v. Quebecor Printing (USA) Corp., 159 S.W.3d 579 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “Section 8-50-103 of the Tennessee Code Annotated, also known as the Tennessee Handicap Act (“THA”), provides: “There shall be no discrimination in the hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment of .”
Bennett v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 315 S.W.3d 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Bennett was “Qualified” for the Position Under the TDA, an employer will not be considered to have unlawfully discriminated against an individual with a disability if the individual’s disability “to some degree prevents the applicant from performing the duties required by the…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103(a) — 11 cases
Lynch v. City of Jellico, 205 S.W.3d 384 (Tenn. 2006). “The THA, found in section 8-50-103, states in pertinent part: There shall be no discrimination in the hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment of the state of Tennessee or any department, agency, institution or political subdivision of the state, or of any…”
Cecil v. Gibson, 820 S.W.2d 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “Cecil filed suit in September, 1988 alleging that he was visually handicapped and that the City and the Commission had discriminated against him in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-50-103 (Supp.1990). The trial court found that Mr.”
Perlberg v. Brencor Asset Mgmt., Inc., 63 S.W.3d 390 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “” After the trial court granted Brencor summary judgment, Perlberg filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, and, for the first time identified T.C.A. § 8-50-103 (1993), *392 the Tennessee Handicap Act (“THA”), as the statute under which he was pursuing his THRA claim.”
Barnes v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 48 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2000). “In September of 1991, Barnes filed suit against Goodyear pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-50-103, the Tennessee Handicap Act (“THA”).”
Jim Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State Univ., 451 S.W.3d 375 (Tenn. 2014).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103(b) — 10 cases
Bennett v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 315 S.W.3d 832 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “Bennett was “Qualified” for the Position Under the TDA, an employer will not be considered to have unlawfully discriminated against an individual with a disability if the individual’s disability “to some degree prevents the applicant from performing the duties required by the…”
Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Comm'n, 746 S.W.2d 691 (Tenn. 1988).
David R. Smith v. Tennessee Nat'l Guard, 387 S.W.3d 570 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012).
Cecil v. Gibson, 820 S.W.2d 361 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “Cecil filed suit in September, 1988 alleging that he was visually handicapped and that the City and the Commission had discriminated against him in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 8-50-103 (Supp.1990). The trial court found that Mr.”
Robinson v. T-MOBILE, 663 F. Supp. 2d 604 (E.D. Tenn. 2009).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103(b)(1) — 1 case
Perlberg v. Brencor Asset Mgmt., Inc., 63 S.W.3d 390 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “” After the trial court granted Brencor summary judgment, Perlberg filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, and, for the first time identified T.C.A. § 8-50-103 (1993), *392 the Tennessee Handicap Act (“THA”), as the statute under which he was pursuing his THRA claim.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103(b)(2) — 2 cases
Perlberg v. Brencor Asset Mgmt., Inc., 63 S.W.3d 390 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “” After the trial court granted Brencor summary judgment, Perlberg filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, and, for the first time identified T.C.A. § 8-50-103 (1993), *392 the Tennessee Handicap Act (“THA”), as the statute under which he was pursuing his THRA claim.”
Forbes v. Wilson Cnty. Emergency Dist. 911 Bd., 966 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1998).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103(b)(l) — 1 case
Perlberg v. Brencor Asset Mgmt., Inc., 63 S.W.3d 390 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). “” After the trial court granted Brencor summary judgment, Perlberg filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, and, for the first time identified T.C.A. § 8-50-103 (1993), *392 the Tennessee Handicap Act (“THA”), as the statute under which he was pursuing his THRA claim.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103(c)(1) — 1 case
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.