EEOC Votes 2-1 to Advance Proposal Rescinding EEO-1 and Related Reports

Seyfarth Synopsis: On July 21, 2026, the EEOC voted 2-1 to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) that would rescind the EEO-1 Report and related EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and EEO-6 reporting requirements, along with certain related recordkeeping and record preservation obligations. The NPRM proposes a 30-day public comment period. Although the vote represents the most significant step to date toward eliminating federal workforce demographic reporting requirements, it does not immediately change employer obligations. The proposal must still move through the full federal rulemaking process before any reporting obligations are eliminated, and covered employers should not assume that EEO-1 reporting requirements have disappeared. 

Background

For much of 2026, employers have been waiting to learn whether the EEOC would open the EEO-1 reporting portal and establish a filing deadline for 2025 workforce data. The Commission's July 21 vote provides the clearest indication yet regarding the future of EEO reporting. 

At an open Commission meeting earlier today, the EEOC considered a draft NPRM titled “Rescission of EEO Reports (EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, EEO-6) and Related Recordkeeping and Record Preservation Requirements.” Following several rounds of remarks by the Commissioners, the EEOC voted 2-1 to publish a proposed rule that would eliminate the agency's longstanding collection of workforce demographic data through the EEO-1 and related reports. The proposal marks one of the most consequential policy shifts in the EEOC's approach to workforce demographic reporting in decades. The vote moves the proposal into the next phase of the regulatory process.

As we previously covered, the proposal was first submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ("OIRA") in May 2026. At that time, only the title of the proposed rule was publicly available, leaving unanswered questions regarding both the scope of the proposal and the Commission's underlying rationale. Today’s meeting offered considerably more detail, revealing Chair Lucas’ and Commissioner Panuccio’s views regarding the utility of EEO-1 reporting and raising questions about the constitutionality of a mandatory workforce demographic reporting process.

Rationale for Rescission

Chair Lucas opened her remarks by framing the proposal as a reassessment of the EEOC's authority under Section 709(c) of Title VII, which authorizes the agency to require reports that are "reasonable, necessary, or appropriate" to enforce the statute.

Notably, the NPRM does not simply characterize the EEO reporting framework as burdensome or outdated. Rather, the proposal asserts that the reporting requirements may be inconsistent with equal employment opportunity law, may encourage unlawful race- and sex-conscious decision-making, and may raise constitutional concerns because they require employers to classify employees by race and sex irrespective of any allegation or evidence of discrimination. These concerns formed the foundation for Chair Lucas’ and Commissioner Panuccio’s support for rescission and framed much of the discussion during the meeting.

Chair Lucas then centered her remarks on three key themes. First, she shared her position that mandatory demographic reporting may inadvertently encourage employers to focus on workforce racial and sex composition in ways that could promote decision-making based on protected characteristics. Second, she asserted that the government-mandated classification of employees by race and sex raises constitutional concerns because employers are required to sort workers into demographic categories regardless of whether discrimination is alleged or suspected. Third, she emphasized what the proposal characterizes as significant costs imposed on both employers and the agency itself, noting that the EEOC estimates employers collectively spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually compiling and submitting the reports.

Commissioner Panuccio echoed the constitutional arguments raised by Chair Lucas and cited Students for Fair Admissions, stating that government-imposed racial classification systems “like the EEO-1 report” must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.

Chair Lucas and Commissioner Panuccio repeatedly questioned whether universal annual demographic reporting remains necessary when the EEOC already has broad authority to obtain workforce information through requests for information, subpoenas, commissioner charges, directed investigations, and systemic enforcement actions. Chair Lucas noted that the EEOC receives approximately 80,000 to 90,000 charges annually yet imposes annual reporting obligations on over two million employers regardless of any allegation of discrimination.

Commissioner Kotagal strongly disagreed with the proposal, arguing that EEO-1 data has served as a foundational enforcement tool for approximately sixty years. She characterized the proposal as an effort to weaken civil rights enforcement and maintained that workforce demographic reporting helps the EEOC identify patterns that may not be apparent from individual charges alone, assess whether complaints warrant broader investigation, prioritize enforcement resources, and support systemic enforcement efforts. She also challenged the constitutional rationale underlying the proposal, arguing that there was no evidence that EEO-1 reporting itself causes employers to engage in discriminatory conduct.

Commissioner Kotagal also argued that the proposal may create confusion for employers because eliminating EEO-1 reporting would not eliminate employers' underlying obligations to collect and maintain workforce demographic information. In support of that position, Commissioner Kotagal pointed to disparate impact analyses, validation studies, EEOC investigations, employer self-assessments, and emerging state-law requirements as examples of circumstances in which workforce demographic data would continue to play an important role. Responding to Commissioner Kotagal's defense of demographic data collection for disparate impact purposes, Chair Lucas cited a recent DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion concerning the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures and indicated that the Commission expects to address those issues in a future proposal currently under consideration.

What does this mean for employers?

The Commission's 2-1 vote does not rescind the EEO-1 or related reporting requirements. Rather, it authorized publication of a proposed rule and begins the notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Before any reporting requirements can be eliminated, the EEOC must receive and consider public comments and ultimately issue a final rule.

Accordingly, employers should continue monitoring developments, including the comment period, any future guidance regarding EEO-1 filing obligations, and the Commission's next steps in the rulemaking process. Employers may also wish to review the published proposal and assess whether participation in the comment process is appropriate. Additional clarity regarding the scope, timing, and practical implications of the proposal is expected as the rulemaking process moves forward.

Seyfarth will continue monitoring the rulemaking process and provide additional analysis now that the NPRM is available. For questions regarding the potential impact of the proposal and compliance considerations, please contact the authors of this alert, a member of Seyfarth's People Analytics team, or your Seyfarth attorney.