Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EEOC NEWS—EEOC proposes ending demographic data collection from employers, seeking to end practice started by agency’s first Chairman, (Jul 22, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

Chair Lucas claims demographic data can encourage discrimination, while Commissioner Kotagal says there is no evidence of that.

In February 1966, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., the first chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, oversaw publication in the Federal Register of a set of new requirements for employers under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requiring them to file the first EEO-1 report and noting that the EEOC reserved the right to require additional reports. It also required certain records to be kept by employers and included penalties for failure to file. Over the ensuing decades, the recordkeeping required has evolved and the agency used those filings to build extensive datasets tracking employment patterns throughout the private sector.

Yesterday, however, in another step forward in its seismic shift in enforcement philosophy, two of the three Commissioners for the EEOC, Chair Andrea Lucas and Commissioner Brittney Bull Panuccio, voted to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the requirement for employers and other covered entities to file an annual report with the EEOC summarizing aggregate data on their employees’ race and sex (reports known respectively as the EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and EEO-6 reports or EEO Data Reports), and the recordkeeping requirements related to these reports.

According to EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, the agency’s requirement that employers provide data regarding employees’ race and sex “may promote racial stereotyping at work, and it may encourage employers to engage in discrimination.”

“The Commission’s proposal to rescind the EEO Data Reports is consistent with the text of Title VII and Supreme Court precedent,” said Lucas. “The proposed rescission of the EEO Data Reports reaffirms the founding principle that every individual is created equal and therefore is entitled to equal treatment under the law. Because the EEO Data Reports require all covered employers to categorize employees by race and sex annually, disconnected from any allegation of a Title VII violation or related Commission enforcement proceeding, the EEO Data Reports stand in direct tension with Title VII’s requirement that employment practices be colorblind.”

In the NPRM, the Commission argues that the EEO Data Reports are inconsistent with equal employment opportunity law, may raise constitutional concerns, and may collect data that is not narrowly tailored or necessary to enforce anti-discrimination statutes.

No evidence of it. Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal, who voted against the rescission, in a separate statement responded to these concerns: “The argument that collecting demographic data somehow leads to sex- or race-based employment actions is entirely speculative, with no foundation in law or fact. This NPRM fails to offer any evidence—not one example—of employers discriminating against their workers because of EEO-1 reporting.”

“Kneecapping” the EEOC. She also stated prior to the meeting: “The proposed rescission of regulations requiring employers to submit EEO-1 data would deprive the agency of information that is critical to its race and sex discrimination investigations. The EEOC has collected this data from employers for six decades. It’s difficult to understand why the agency would kneecap its ability to investigate discrimination, particularly at a time when the EEOC is chronically understaffed and underfunded. EEO-1 data is a key tool in our toolbox.”

Also inconsistent with Title VII’s requirements. After the meeting, Kotagal was more direct about what this change means in practical terms or, more specifically, what it doesn’t mean. She warned employers that regardless of the result of this reporting change, they are still required to collect the data. She explained:

“Perhaps what’s most perplexing about this proposal to rescind the EEOC’s demographic data collection is that we’re depriving the agency of critical data employers are still required to collect. I fear that this proposal will confuse employers, risking future liability. So, I want to be clear—regardless of whether the Commission ultimately rescinds its EEO-1 regulations, employers are still required to collect demographic data under the law. Section 709(c) of Title VII states that employers must “make and keep such records relevant to the determinations of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed.” Demographic data is necessarily part of that recordkeeping requirement. Collecting and maintaining this data is also central to employer obligations to guard against disparate impact.”

Previous leaders respond. EEO Leaders, a group that includes former officials of the EEOC and the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, who have served across numerous presidential administrations, issued a statement about the decision, stating that the vote “disserves the agency, employers, and the public.”

They wrote:

“Since 1966, the EEO-1, EEO-3, EEO-4, and EEO-5 data collections have required covered employers to submit to EEOC information on the demographics of their workforces on the basis of race, sex and national origin to give EEOC, employers, and researchers a factual basis to better understand patterns of employment and to consider whether employers may be missing qualified talent due to potentially discriminatory barriers.

“Rescission of these valuable data collections will undermine the EEOC’s ability to evaluate and investigate charges that have been filed with it, as well as to tailor its outreach and guidance to industries or areas where evidence indicates barriers may exist. If adopted as a final rule, the proposal would deprive employers of information about their industries that can provide early-warning signals of potential discrimination in their own workplaces. And rescission of these tools will also deny researchers a source of valuable information that can inform studies of employment patterns and trends.”

In May, they also issued a statement further explaining the harms abandoning the collection of such data would cause to employers and workers.

The EEOC Leaders group also noted that the EEOC voted to publish the regulation with only 30 days for the public to comment, which is inconsistent with the 60-day comment the agency said it would provide. They add that when Commissioner Kotagal offered a motion at the public meeting to extend that period to 60 days, the Chair and Commissioner Punuccio “did not even vote on that motion because the motion was not “seconded” as is required to call a vote on the motion.”

They also stated their support for the statement issued by Commissioner Kotagal.

Comments and hearing. Members of the public wishing to comment on the NPRM will have 30 days to do so from the date of publication in the Federal Register, via comments submitted through www.regulations.gov. In addition, a public hearing concerning this proposal will be held on August 11, 2026, and requests to testify at the hearing should be submitted by August 7, 2026, through www.regulations.gov.

News: AgencyNews FederalRegulations FederalLegislation Discrimination SexDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination ESGNews GCNNews