Suitable Work Requirements

Tennessee SB1874 changes the rules about what is considered suitable work for people claiming unemployment benefits. It removes the requirement that a job must meet certain wage thresholds based on a claimant's highest earnings during a specific period to be considered suitable. This means that claimants may have more flexibility in the types of jobs they can accept without losing their benefits.

TN SB1874 is a senate bill in the Tennessee 114th General Assembly, sponsored by Jack Johnson (R), currently “Passed” since May 27, 2026.

We track 9,160 Tennessee bills this session, 353 of them sponsored by Jack Johnson.

Supporters of SB1874 argue that the bill provides greater flexibility for unemployed individuals, allowing them to take on a wider range of job opportunities without the fear of losing their benefits. They believe this will help more people get back to work faster by not limiting them to jobs that meet specific wage criteria.

Critics of SB1874 contend that the removal of wage thresholds for suitable work could lead to lower-quality job placements for unemployed individuals. They argue that this could undermine the financial stability of claimants, forcing them into jobs that pay significantly less than their previous positions.

The analysis of SB1874, which amends work requirements for claimants, reveals no direct conflicts of interest between the sponsor, Jack Johnson, and the bill's subject matter. Johnson's primary occupation is as Vice President of Client Relations at CIGNA Healthcare, a company in the health services industry, which does not directly intersect with labor and employment legislation regarding work suitability requirements. Additionally, while he owns a small business consulting firm, this does not appear to be affected by the changes proposed in the bill.

Furthermore, Johnson's other financial interests, including various investment funds and his spouse's real estate company, do not have a clear connection to the labor policies addressed in SB1874. The absence of any direct financial gain from the bill's provisions suggests that there is minimal risk of personal financial conflict. Overall, the lack of relevant personal interests that align with the bill's impacts indicates a low risk level for potential conflicts of interest.

Unlike federal analysis based on campaign donations, state analysis examines legislators' personal financial interests — their jobs, businesses, and investments.

Items marked "AI-researched" are generated from public sources but have not been independently verified. Verified data is sourced from official legislature websites and disclosure filings.