EEOC ends decades-old workforce reporting rules
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission voted on July 21 to approve a proposal ending the requirement for employers to report workforce demographic data. The move could reshape federal employment compliance if finalized.
The draft rule would rescind the EEO-1 report and related data collection obligations in place since 1966. The proposal must still go through a public comment period before taking effect, but the commission’s 2-1 vote marks a decisive step toward eliminating one of the longest-standing federal reporting mandates for employers.
EEO-1 report requirements and purpose
The EEO-1 report required private-sector employers with 100 or more employees, along with certain federal contractors, to submit annual data breaking down their workforce by job category, race, ethnicity, and sex. Similar rules applied to apprenticeship programs, unions, and public-sector employers through related forms.
The EEOC’s authority to collect this data comes from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires covered employers to maintain records relevant to discrimination investigations. The agency used the aggregated data to identify industry-wide disparities, guide enforcement actions, and track workforce trends. While individual company reports were not made public, the EEOC could release anonymized, aggregated data.
In recent years, some major companies began voluntarily disclosing their EEO-1 forms amid pressure from shareholders and advocacy groups pushing for greater transparency. The agency has never released individual company data without consent.
Commission’s arguments and opposition
EEOC Chair Lucas argued that requiring companies to submit annual demographic reports “risks encouraging companies to justify discriminatory practices to diversify their workforce,” stating that the categories in the EEO-1 forms “don’t reflect the modern workforce” and that the requirements impose “significant financial and administrative burdens on the nation’s employers.”
Lucas emphasized that the EEOC would continue to demand data in the course of its individual investigations.
Related: Microplastics found in everyday products raise alarms
Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal dissented, stating that the proposal would “kneecap [the EEOC’s] ability to investigate discrimination, particularly at a time when the EEOC is chronically understaffed and underfunded.” She also warned employers that under future leadership, the EEOC could reinstitute EEO-1 collection.
The vote split along party lines, with the commission’s two Democratic members divided and the lone Republican member supporting the proposal.
If the rule moves forward, it won’t take effect immediately. The public has until August 11 to submit comments on Regulations.gov. After that, the commission will review feedback before issuing a final rule. Legal challenges could delay or block the change.
Current reporting obligations remain in place. Employers must still file EEO-1 reports unless the rule is finalized.
The proposal’s outcome may depend on whether the next administration reverses course.
State-level reporting requirements persist
Even if the federal requirement ends, many employers will still face state-level mandates. California requires private employers with 100 or more employees to submit annual pay data reports to the state’s Civil Rights Department. These reports include pay bands and hours worked, broken down by establishment, job category, race, ethnicity, and sex.
Starting in 2026, California will also require employers and labor contractors to store demographic data separately from personnel records. Penalties for noncompliance are now mandatory: $100 per employee for a first violation and $200 per employee for subsequent violations.
Related: India Legal Market Liberalisation Hopes Hit New Low
Minnesota takes a different approach but imposes significant obligations. Government contractors and public entities with 40 or more employees must obtain a Workforce Certificate and an Equal Pay Certificate, which require submission of demographic and pay data. The state’s Local Government Pay Equity Act also mandates that public jurisdictions eliminate gender-based wage gaps and submit reports to the Minnesota Management and Budget Office.
Illinois requires companies with 100 or more employees to file an EEO-1 as part of its Equal Pay Act compliance. Other states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York City, have similar requirements. More states are likely to adopt their own reporting rules if the federal government steps back.
Employer next steps
Employers should not dismantle their reporting systems yet.
The current obligation remains legally binding until a final rule is published. Legal challenges could delay or overturn the decision.
Employment attorneys recommend companies continue preparing to file EEO-1 reports. They should also audit their state-level obligations, particularly in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York City, where reporting requirements may be stricter than the federal standard.
Internal recordkeeping remains important. Title VII still requires employers to maintain records relevant to discrimination investigations, and the EEOC can demand workforce data during enforcement actions. Companies that stop collecting demographic data entirely do so at their own risk.
Kotagal’s warning about a potential reversal under future leadership is worth considering. Employers should preserve their compliance systems rather than assume this change is permanent.
