For nearly six decades, most large employers have had a familiar annual ritual: counting their employees by job category, race, ethnicity, and sex and reporting those numbers to the federal government on a form called the EEO-1. That obligation may soon be a thing of the past.
On July 23, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would rescind the EEO-1 report, and a whole family of related reports, along with the recordkeeping requirements that go with them. So, what does the proposal actually say, why is the EEOC pushing it, and what should employers do about it?
What is On the Chopping Block?
The proposed rule, formally titled “Removal of Reporting Requirements,” would rescind and remove the filing requirements for six separate reports. Those reports cover different types of organizations:
EEO-1: Employer Information Report filed by private employers.
EEO-2: Apprenticeship Information Report (currently inactive).
EEO-3: Local Union Report.
EEO-4: State and Local Government Report.
EEO-5: Elementary-Secondary Staff Information Report filed by public school systems.
EEO-6: Higher Education Staff Information Report (also inactive, and now largely duplicated by a Department of Education survey).
The EEO-1 is by far the most impactful of the six. It is a mandatory annual data collection requiring private employers with 100 or more employees, and certain federal contractors, to submit workforce demographic data broken down by job category, race, ethnicity, and sex.
These requirements aren’t new. Private employers have filed the EEO-1 report since 1966, submitting an annual accounting of their workforce. When Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it authorized the EEOC to require employers to keep records and report workforce data so the agency could enforce the new law. The EEOC created the EEO-1 report to carry out that mandate. The data allows the EEOC to identify demographic patterns worth investigation and to analyze workforce trends across industries. For decades, that information has also fed employer compliance efforts, and, for many organizations, diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
Why Is the EEOC Pushing This?
The EEOC’s stated rationale is striking, and unusually blunt for a federal agency addressing its own regulations. In the proposal, the Commission preliminarily determined that these reports are “inconsistent with equal employment opportunity law and potentially unconstitutional.” The EEOC found that the data collected is not narrowly tailored, is unnecessary to enforce anti-discrimination laws, and that any marginal benefits are outweighed by the substantial burdens the reports impose on employers and on the Commission itself. By the agency’s own estimate, the current data collection costs employers almost $275 million every year, plus roughly $4 million for the EEOC to administer.
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas framed the move as a matter of principle. She stated that because the reports “require all covered employers to categorize employees by race and sex annually, disconnected from any allegation of a Title VII violation,” they “stand in direct tension with Title VII’s requirement that employment practices be colorblind.” She added that collecting such data “absent any specific allegation of discrimination” both risks hindering enforcement and “raises constitutional concerns,” while emphasizing that the Commission’s authority to request tailored records relevant to an actual charge “remains unchanged.”
The vote to issue the proposal was not unanimous. The Commissioners approved it 2-1 along party lines on July 21, 2026, reflecting the broader debate over the change.
The proposal fits a larger pattern with the current EEOC. Under Chair Lucas, the EEOC has closely scrutinized DEI programs and has made the discrimination claims of majority-group plaintiffs (often referred to as “reverse discrimination”) central to its enforcement agenda. In 2026, the Commission rescinded its prior strategic enforcement plan in favor of one that prioritizes “remedying” DEI-related discrimination, and it later rescinded longstanding affirmative action guidance it viewed as inconsistent with Title VII. Chair Lucas has even publicly invited white male employees to file discrimination charges. Viewed against that backdrop, the proposed rescission is indicative of a broader shift in federal enforcement priorities.
This Is Only a Proposal
For now, this change is only a proposal: nothing has changed yet. The proposal is an early step in the federal rulemaking process. The EEOC has opened a public comment period, with comments due on or before August 24, 2026, and has scheduled a public hearing to receive testimony on the proposal. Only after the comment period closes will the agency decide whether to issue a final rule. Because the proposal must clear the notice-and-comment period and could face legal challenges, it may change, be delayed, or be abandoned before it ever takes effect.
Until a final rule becomes effective, current obligations remain fully in place. Covered employers should assume their existing EEO-1 duties still apply: continue collecting demographic data and preparing to file. Notably, the EEOC has not yet announced a 2026 filing window for the EEO-1, even though existing regulations contemplate an annual filing. The safest course is to prepare reports and assume you will be required to file.
What Changes (and What Doesn’t)
If the rule is finalized substantially as proposed, employers would no longer have to submit these annual demographic reports or comply with certain recordkeeping requirements. But even then, the change would come with important limits:
The EEOC retains its investigative authority. The agency could still seek workforce demographic information and personnel records in connection with a discrimination charge or other enforcement activity.
State and local obligations are unaffected. Federal rescission would not touch separate state-level requirements. Colorado, for example, has enacted a law requiring covered employers to report EEO-1-style demographic data at the state level beginning July 1, 2027, regardless of what happens federally. California’s pay data reporting and Illinois’s own reporting obligations would likewise continue.
Demographic data still matters. Even if the federal mandate disappears, employers should think carefully before dismantling their data systems, since that information can be relevant to defending discrimination claims and to other compliance obligations. Regardless of what happens with EEO-1 reporting requirements, the law still prohibits race- and sex-based employment decisions. Any demographic data employers collect voluntarily should never be used to drive decisions based on protected characteristics rather than individual merit.
The underlying anti-discrimination laws do not change. If the EEO-1 reporting requirements are rescinded, this will not alter existing anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, or their state and local counterparts. Employers will remain obligated to prevent and address discrimination in the workplace, and the EEOC keeps its authority to investigate and pursue those violations.
So, What Should Employers Do Now?
Maintain Current Processes: For employers, the practical message right now is “business as usual”: keep collecting demographic data, keep your EEO-1 processes intact, and watch for a final rule before changing anything.
Refine DEI Strategies: Employers that want to keep building diverse workforces can still do so; the key is to focus on lawful, opportunity-based methods rather than decisions driven by protected characteristics. This means casting a wide net through broad outreach and recruiting; using neutral, skills-based criteria; and removing barriers to opportunity when possible.
Make Your Voice Heard: For those who view this data as a tool for identifying patterns of discrimination, the comment period is an opportunity to be heard. Either way, this is a developing story worth following closely.
