Don’t Erase What You Need to Measure

James Steinmetz – The Public Trust

Since 1966, companies with at least 100 employees or federal contractors with at least 50 employees have been required by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to submit a yearly report that breaks down gender and racial demographics among their staff, from executives down to lower-level workers [2]. This is a longstanding civil rights rule called the EEO-1 that may soon change. The proposal in question is to eliminate the EEO-1, and it would affect reports from private employers, unions, governments, schools, and higher education [3]. The change was proposed on July 23, followed by a public hearing on August 11, and public comments were due on August 24. There has been no change or final decision so far [4].

In regard to the proposal, the EEOC claims it’ll create an estimated $275 million in savings for reporting entities and an additional $5 million per year if the agency no longer administers reports. EEOC chair Andrea Lucas says the reporting program creates substantial compliance costs, has limited enforcement value, could encourage employers to make race- or sex-conscious decisions, and may raise constitutional concerns, referring to the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. Critics of the EEO-1 argue that requiring employers to classify workers by race and sex could encourage companies to manage by demographic targets rather than by individual merit. They also contend that this may conflict with Title VII’s ban on race- or sex-based employment decisions [5]. Supporters of the EEO-1 contend that the report does not set quotas or dictate hiring; it simply measures patterns so that potential discrimination can be identified and addressed [2]. As a counterargument to the current EEOC, nothing is enforced by the EEO-1, and there are no quotas here. We need to remember the Jim Crow-era activity that was meant to be barred from returning [4]. 

A company might say that they hire based on merit and hiring practices, but how could we tell? If information is tracked on who gets promoted, who stays, how people are paid, and the general composition of the workforce, then it is easier to have a definite answer to that with the EEO-1. It is only data; no enforcement of the law takes place. It alone cannot be proof of discrimination, but it can be crucial in creating fair environments for everyone. A federal reporting requirement is better suited to this task because it exists to protect everyone’s rights. Let’s say this hypothetical company has 5,000 employees. Entry-level jobs are overwhelmingly diverse, but executive positions are almost one demographic. An EEO-1 may trigger an investigation, and the company could face enforcement action or a lawsuit if violations are found [2]. Without the yearly report, all it does is make things harder for multiple parties: a worker suspecting discrimination, a state civil rights agency, or a company seeking to learn about itself. These institutions exist for a reason, and they should not be dismantled abruptly without considering the consequences [6]. 

What is shocking about this, among many other actions by the Trump administration, is that in a post-civil rights movement America, it’s unheard of to go against the status quo like this. The laws passed at that time are sometimes seen as a second founding, and it’s the consensus that we won’t touch them [4].

At the hearing held on August 11, most of the witnesses argued against abolishing the system and instead advocated for retaining or modernizing what we currently have [2]. Civil rights agencies in seven states and Washington, D.C., have issued a joint statement urging the preservation of the EEO-1 system. Their main claim is that ending what we have would make discrimination investigations harder and reduce transparency [6].

The argument is practical: many might want to retain the same system, but if the information isn’t stored with the federal government, it passes the burden onto state and local agencies. Investigations would be more difficult because the information could be formatted differently or simply be less reliable compared to another state’s [7].

An institutional investor coalition, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, disputed the legal basis for this proposal and argued that the EEO-1 is vital, while the Society for Human Resource Management, or SHRM, tentatively supported ending the current EEO-1 program only if it is replaced with a modernized framework that gives employers clear guidance. SHRM noted that employers will likely need to collect the same data for other purposes [8].

A gap would be left in the procedure of the law, and something that makes sense from one perspective could be catastrophic once put into place. Overall, it is not helpful to totally scrap a program many view as essential to fair practices and grandstand over cost-saving measures when there are ripples we aren’t aware of yet if it is implemented. Rather than outright eliminating a program, reform may be the better path. There is no problem with them reiterating the purpose of the reports, what employers should track, or how the data can be used by agencies. It is important for some independent body to track unfair practices and help ensure that equality is more than rhetorical; without that, abuses can go undetected [7].

Sources: 

1. Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., “Key Insights Into The EEOC’s Draft Strategic Plan For FY 2026-2030,” Duane Morris, July 6, 2026, https://blogs.duanemorris.com/classactiondefense/2026/07/06/key-insights-into-the-eeocs-draft-strategic-plan-for-fy-2026-2030/; 2. Claire Savage and Alexandra Olson, “Researchers, advocates rail against government's efforts to end workforce data collection,” CT Insider, August 11, 2026, https://www.ctinsider.com/news/politics/article/researchers-advocates-rail-against-government-s-22384228.php; 3. Peter M. Stein and Marissa Vitolo, “The EEOC Moves to End EEO Reporting – Comments Invited Through August 24,” Epstein Becker Green, August 4, 2026, https://www.ebglaw.com/workforce-bulletin/the-eeoc-moves-to-end-eeo-reporting-comments-invited-through-august-24; 4. Claire Savage and Alexandra Olson, “Researchers, advocates rail against government’s efforts to end workforce data collection,” AP News, August 11, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/eeoc-demographic-data-dei-race-sex-civil-rights-trump-b8b9cb3d4a057ca75e9b2a5757f082c7; 5. Jessica M. Reis, “How does the EEOC's proposal to remove EEO-1 reporting impact employers?,” Lexology, September 1, 2026, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1715ef52-52ad-4de4-8e0f-90e40ce46c36; 6. “Illinois Joins States to Urge EEOC to Preserve Workforce Demographic Reporting,” Illinois, August 31, 2026, https://www.illinois.gov/news/release.html?releaseid=32893; 7. Caroline Burnett and Robin Samuel, “Federal Retreat, State Expansion: The New Workforce Data Landscape for US Employers,” The Employer Report, September 1, 2026, https://www.theemployerreport.com/2026/09/federal-retreat-state-expansion-the-new-workforce-data-landscape-for-us-employers/; 8. Ryan Golden, “SHRM tentatively backs end of EEO-1 reports, but investor group calls them ‘vital’,” HR Dive, August 26, 2026, https://www.hrdive.com/news/shrm-tentatively-backs-end-of-eeo-1-reports-investor-group/828868/