For the last 60 years, the federal government has collected workforce demographic data from large employers. That reporting requirement is closer to ending, but it isn't over yet. Here's where the recission effort stands, and what newspaper publishers need to know.
On July 21, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 along party lines to advance a proposed rule that would eliminate the EEO-1 annual report of an employer’s workforce’s demographic makeup. The EEO-1 has required private employers with 100 or more workers, and many federal contractors, to report their workforce broken down by job category, race, ethnicity and sex.
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas and Commissioner Brittany Panuccio, who make up the EEOC’s majority, argue the mandatory reporting itself may be unconstitutional: it forces employers to sort every worker by race and sex regardless of whether any discrimination is alleged. They also cite compliance costs, which the EEOC’s own estimate puts at hundreds of millions of dollars a year across all covered employers, and a lack of utility considering its broad reach of all large employers without regard to any allegations of discrimination. Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal dissented, calling EEO-1 data a foundational enforcement tool the agency has relied on for 60 years.
The proposal published in the Federal Register on July 23 opened a 30-day comment window. The EEOC held a public hearing on Aug. 11, where 22 witnesses testified for about two and a half hours. Supporters raised constitutional and compelled-speech concerns, while opponents cited the value of the data for enforcement, research and investor reporting. No formal action was taken at the hearing itself.
Written comments closed on Aug. 24. Approximately 3,000 comments were filed, including for example, a comment filed by The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which recognized the EEOC’s right to rescind the form that provided little utility to employers, while at the same time urging the EEOC to provide employers with needed guidance as to their continuing obligations with respect to the collection of workforce demographic data.
The EEOC's proposal is not happening in isolation. On Aug. 21, the Department of Labor issued a final rule, effective Sept. 21, that removes several longstanding Section 503 obligations for covered federal contractors, including the invitation for applicants and employees to self-identify as having a disability, the 7% disability utilization goal, and the CC-305 self-identification form. Unlike the EEO-1 measure, which remains only a proposal, the Section 503 rule is already final and taking effect. The Labor Department's position is that the prior framework was in tension with the Americans with Disabilities Act's restrictions on disability-related inquiries, and that some contractors had treated the utilization goal as a quota despite its intended role as a benchmark. Contractors still must report protected-veteran data under VEVRAA through the VETS-4212 report.
This is still a proposed rule, not a final one. Nothing about current EEO-1 obligations has changed. The EEOC will now review the comments it received, issue a final rule, and submit it to OMB before it is issued as a final rule. This process typically takes months, and potentially longer if litigation is filed with respect to the final rule. The agency has not opened the EEO-1 filing portal for 2025 data, and there is no current deadline for filing the EEO-1 Report for 2025 data.
Keep collecting the workforce data you would normally report. Title VII’s recordkeeping provisions (Section 709(c)) require covered employers to make and keep records relevant to determining whether unlawful discrimination has occurred, and disparate impact theory, rooted in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., means workforce data can remain central to defending or evaluating employment practices even without a mandatory reporting form. Rescinding the federal requirement would not eliminate your underlying obligation to maintain that data for other purposes, including defending against discrimination claims, complying with relevant state laws, and engaging in quality control reviews/audits of your human resources processes.
None of this affects state and local reporting regimes, which stay in place regardless of what the EEOC decides. These fall into two buckets. First, pay-transparency and pay-data reporting laws, including in California, Illinois and Massachusetts, with New York City recently adopting its own annual pay-data reporting requirement for larger employers, modeled on the former federal EEO-1 Component 2. Second, demographic-reporting requirements are tied to doing business with certain states, including Minnesota and New Jersey. But note that certain states prohibit such data collection from applicants (such as Maine, Rhode Island, Washington and Pennsylvania).
We will continue tracking this rulemaking and will flag anything that changes your filing obligations.
This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
Camille Olson is a partner with Seyfarth Shaw LLP and a member of the America's Newspapers board of directors.
