The EEOC’s August 11 Hearing on the Future of the EEO-1 Report

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) held a public hearing on August 11, 2026 on its proposed rule to eliminate the EEO-1 report and related EEO data-collection requirements.

Berkshire attended the hearing, which lasted more than two hours, and featured 22 witnesses. The testimony revealed a sharp divide. A majority of speakers urged the EEOC to retain, modernize, or otherwise preserve standardized workforce demographic reporting, while six speakers supported the proposed rescission.

For employers, the most important thing to remember right now is that this remains a proposal and nothing has changed yet. The EEO-1 requirement remains in effect while the EEOC considers comments and decides whether to issue a final rule.

Background: What Is the EEOC Proposing?

The EEOC voted 2-1 on July 21 to propose rescinding the federal requirements for the EEO-1 through EEO-6 reports, along with related recordkeeping and record-preservation requirements. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on July 23.

The best-known of these reports is the EEO-1, which has been used for decades to collect aggregate information about the racial, ethnic, and sex composition of covered employers' workforces by job category. The current EEO-1 requirement generally applies to private employers with 100 or more employees, with separate requirements historically applying to certain federal contractors.

Why does the EEOC want to eliminate the reports?

The Commission's current leadership argues that mandatory demographic reporting is not necessary to enforce federal equal employment laws and may conflict with Title VII's requirement that employment decisions be made without unlawful consideration of race or sex.

The EEOC also argues that the reports impose substantial costs without being tied to a particular discrimination allegation. According to the agency, the existing EEO-1 reporting requirements cost employers nearly $275 million annually, in addition to almost $4 million in annual administrative costs for the EEOC.

The EEOC has argued that requiring employers to classify their employees by race and sex, absent an allegation of discrimination, creates both legal and constitutional concerns. At the same time, the proposed rule makes clear that the EEOC would retain its authority to request targeted workforce records when investigating discrimination charges.

Who testified at the August 11 hearing?

The hearing included 22 witnesses representing employer organizations, civil-rights groups, researchers, and other stakeholders. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas indicated that the Commission granted all timely requests to present witness testimony, and that the Commission extended the meeting time to accommodate all witnesses who requested an opportunity to testify. The list of witnesses included the following:

• David Fortney, Institute for Workplace Equality

• Fe Bencosme, No Group Affiliation

• Ken Marcus, Brandeis Center

• Amalea Smirniotopoulos, Legal Defense Fund

• Professor Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, Center for Employment Equity, University of Massachusetts Amherst

• Lauren Khouri, National Women’s Law Center

• Jing-Lu Yu, 80-20 Educational Foundation

• Mark Bendick, Jr.

• Michael Eastman, Center for Workplace Compliance

• Melvina Ford, Equal Rights Advocates

• Joseph Kohm, Do No Harm

• Rachel Morrison, Ethics and Public Policy Center

• Carmella Glover, Diversity Action Alliance

• Jocelyn Frye, National Partnership for Women and Families

• Karla Gilbride, ACLU and EEO Leaders

• Meghan Kissell, American Association of University Women

• Maya Raghu, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

• Greg Scott, 1792 Exchange

• Rachel Lee, Stand with Asian Americans

• Meredith Benton, Whistle Stop Capital

• Ashley Westby, National Employment Lawyers Association

• Jack Brown, Pacific Legal Foundation

What Did the Opponents of Rescission Say?

Some of the consistent themes raised by witnesses who opposed the EEOC proposal included the following:

1. The data helps put individual claims in context: Civil-rights organizations argued that an individual employee often cannot know whether an adverse employment decision reflects a broader pattern. The argument is essentially that discrimination is often difficult to see one case at a time.

2. EEO-1 data provides a consistent national dataset of workforce demographics: Witnesses also highlighted EEO-1 data provides a consistent national dataset that can be used to compare industries, occupations, employers, and demographic groups over time.

3. Employers themselves use the data to identify potential problems: Perhaps one of the more significant aspects of the hearing was testimony disputing the EEOC’s premise that demographic data encourages unlawful quotas, noting that the EEOC had not identified a specific example of an employer using EEO-1 data to engage in unlawful discrimination. In addition, other witnesses offered examples of employers using demographic data as a compliance tool, not to discriminate.

4. EEOC’s position Is inconsistent with the Trump Administration’s collection of race and sex data in other contexts: Several witnesses questioned the EEOC’s argument that the required reporting of workforce race and sex data might be unconstitutional. These witnesses pointed to the Administration’s 2026 decision to require certain universities and graduate schools to report aggregated race and sex information of applicants as part of their annual Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) reporting, arguing that collection of the same type of data could not be constitutional in one context and unconstitutional in another.

5. Erasing data does not erase discrimination: Witnesses who opposed the proposal often noted that ceasing the regular collection of workforce data from all employers would not reduce instances of discrimination but might hide it or make it harder to detect broader patterns across employers or industries.

What Did Supporters of Elimination Say?

The six witnesses who supported the proposal generally echoed the EEOC's position that the EEO-1 is burdensome, outdated, and not necessary to enforce Title VII. These witnesses also noted that the EEO-1 does not collect information about every form of discrimination investigated by the agency, including some claims involving religion and pregnancy, which supports the EEOC’s conclusion that this data reporting is not necessary to EEOC enforcement efforts. The supporters' broader argument was that the EEOC can obtain information when it actually has a reason to investigate discrimination. From that perspective, these witnesses argued that requiring millions of employers to classify and report workforce demographics every year is an unnecessary regulatory burden.

One of the Hearing's Biggest Questions: Will Employers Really Have Less Work?

This may ultimately be one of the most important practical issues for employers.

Several speakers questioned whether eliminating the EEO-1 would actually reduce burden for the EEOC or employers. Witnesses noted the EEOC would retain authority to request targeted records during discrimination investigations. State agencies and private plaintiffs could also seek demographic and workforce information through investigations, subpoenas, and litigation. Without a standardized federal reporting system, employers could instead find themselves reconstructing information on demand.

In other words, the choice may not necessarily be:

Collect the data vs. don't collect the data.

It may instead become:

Collect standardized data routinely vs. reconstruct data when a government agency, plaintiff, or litigant asks for it.

That distinction could have significant implications for HR, legal, compliance, and data-governance functions.

What Happens Next?

The August 11 hearing did not result in a final decision. The EEOC continues to accept written comments on the proposed rule, with the current deadline set for August 24, 2026. As of the hearing, nearly 1,500 comments reportedly had been submitted.

The EEOC must consider the written comments and hearing testimony before deciding whether to finalize the proposal, modify it, or withdraw it.

For employers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: the EEO-1 requirement has not been eliminated. Employers should continue following existing reporting and recordkeeping requirements unless and until a final rule changes them.