There are several important questions on the 2016 Tennessee Ballot, already waiting in your inbox, and NFIB/Tennessee needs your input. Here’s a look at the ballot questions.
1. Should Tennessee set up an exclusive administrative review process for medical malpractice and error claims?
Legislation has been introduced to establish an administrative “patients’ compensation system,” modeled after other states’ workers’ compensation systems, to be the only method for medical malpractice and error claims. Appeals would be heard by an administrative law judge, and the bill would cover physicians but not hospitals or other healthcare professionals.
Proponents say this system would reduce healthcare costs (saving employers and taxpayers billions), speed payment for injured patients, eliminate frivolous lawsuits and provide malpractice insurance relief for physicians.
Opponents say the “no fault” system is unfair to injured patients; patients should always be able to have a trial by jury; proponents’ savings estimates are inflated; limitations on loss payments would shift the burden to the disability, retirement and healthcare systems; and defensive medicine and costs will actually increase because more claims will be filed and paid, negatively affecting providers’ ability to get credentialed by health plans and hospitals.
2. Should Tennessee pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act?
Legislation has been filed requiring Tennessee employers to provide “reasonable accommodation” for pregnant workers before and after childbirth. Under the proposal, pregnant workers’ requests must be accommodated unless the employer demonstrates they would impose “undue hardship.” Pregnant workers could also sue on several grounds, and rulemaking authority would go to Tennessee’s Human Rights Commission.
Proponents say Tennessee families need stronger legal protections, FMLA and current state law regarding maternity leave is not adequate, employers will benefit from lower turnover and increased productivity, and the bill promotes healthier pregnancies and babies.
Opponents say the legislation is crafted to expand FMLA to Tennessee employers with more than eight employees, the proposal doesn’t consider if pregnant workers can perform the essential functions of the job, the workplace will be more contentious with employers on the defensive and expanding the authority of the Tennessee Human Rights Commission—which has an unfavorable track record with businesses—will lead to costly discrimination lawsuits.
3. Should employers be prohibited from considering an applicant’s criminal history until after the interview process has concluded? and 4. Should Tennessee pass a law protecting employers from a cause of action for alleged negligent hiring of an employee or independent contractor who has been previously convicted of a criminal offense?
Legislation has been proposed that would make it unlawful for a business to inquire about or require an applicant disclose any criminal convictions during the application process and initial interview, also known as “banning the box.” Background checks, including a criminal history check, could only occur afterward. In contrast, Louisiana also recently passed legislation protecting employers from a cause of action as a result of alleged negligent hiring or inadequate supervision of persons with a criminal history.
Proponents of ban the box say it prevents racial discrimination, is good for society, keeps welfare costs down and that a criminal offense places a barrier to getting a new start on life.
Opponents of ban the box say employers should be free to request all information relevant to an applicant’s character and history, business owners would incur greater expenses and hiring delays, and employers would be discouraged from considering criminal history for fear of potential litigation, making it more difficult to maintain a safe environment for employees and customers.
