EEOC moves to end EEO-1 demographic reporting
BridgeTower Media Newswires//July 30, 2026//
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has formally proposed eliminating the annual EEO-1 report and several related demographic reporting requirements.
On July 21, the EEOC voted 2-1 along party lines to advance the proposal. It was published in the Federal Register on July 23, opening a public comment period through August 24. The EEOC will hold a public hearing on August 11; requests to testify are due August 7.
What the proposal would change
The EEO-1 Component 1 report currently requires private employers with at least 100 employees and certain federal contractors with at least 50 employees to report workforce data by job category, race or ethnicity, and sex.
If finalized, the rule would remove the EEO-1 requirement, along with EEO-2 through EEO-6 reporting provisions covering apprenticeship programs, labor organizations, state and local governments, public school systems and higher education institutions.
The EEO-2 and EEO-6 collections have not been active for decades, but their requirements remain in the regulations. The proposal would also eliminate recordkeeping provisions tied specifically to completing these reports.
The proposal would not eliminate the broader personnel-record preservation requirements that apply under federal employment discrimination laws. Nor would it prevent the EEOC from requesting demographic or employment records from a particular employer while investigating a discrimination charge.
Why the EEOC wants to end reporting
The EEOC’s majority argues that routine demographic reporting may encourage employment decisions aimed at correcting statistical imbalances and is not sufficiently connected to discrimination allegations. The agency also describes the reporting process as costly and burdensome.
The EEOC estimates that eliminating the reports would produce approximately $278 million in annual savings, including about $273 million for private employers. Critics, including the dissenting commissioner and civil rights advocates, argue that the data is an important tool for identifying possible patterns of discrimination and measuring workforce trends.
What employers should do now
The proposal does not immediately change employer obligations. Covered employers should continue preserving required personnel records and maintaining their ability to report demographic data while the rulemaking process continues.
Even if the federal reporting requirement is ultimately eliminated, employers may still need the information to comply with state law and local laws. Several states, including Massachusetts, Illinois, California, and Colorado (beginning in 2027) require employers to report workforce demographic information and/or compensation data.
Employers may also choose to collect demographic information for internal audits or workforce analysis. Outside of information required by law, demographic data should generally be gathered through voluntary self-identification.
Employers should limit access, use the information only for legitimate compliance or self-auditing purposes, and keep it separate from hiring, promotion, compensation, termination and other employment decisions.
Verdicts & Settlements
- Negligence and Tort – E-bike collision leads to neck injury, psoriasis flare
- Motor Vehicle Negligence – ‘Daydreaming’ driver hit plaintiff walking by road
- Motor Vehicle Negligence 92-year-old dies after being hit by vehicle
- Motor Vehicle Negligence – Motorcyclist suffers severe injuries in vehicle accident
- Medical Malpractice – Patient dies after alleged improper medicine admin
Legal Tech
- AI in practice: How new technology is affecting litigation practice
- Experts foresee legal malpractice risk for those who eschew AI
- Legal Decoder launches AI-powered billing analytics interface
Opinion Digests
- Criminal – Doctor convicted of unauthorized distribution of oxycodone
- Tort – Assault and battery claims against postal employee are dismissed
- Immigration – Petitioner failed to connect fear of persecution to PSG
- Civil Procedure – District court won’t revisit three-year old decision
- Bankruptcy – Pro se debtor’s myriad motions and challenges are denied
- Criminal – Firearm possession sentence was not substantively unreasonable
- Appeals – Inmate’s untimely appeal is dismissed







