On July 6, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published its regulatory agenda within the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. Published twice a year, the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions contains reports from each federal agency on the actions they plan to issue in the short and long term. The EEOC’s agenda consists of ten topics that are either at the proposed rule stage or final rule stage of the regulatory process. A rule listed as being at the proposed rule stage means it still needs to go through the notice and comment process, while a rule listed as being at the final rule stage is in the process of being finalized to be issued in the Federal Register.
Combined with the EEOC’s National Enforcement Plan, the regulatory agenda paints a clear picture of what the agency sees as its most important priorities. However, it is important for employers to understand that these rules are not finalized yet and may be changed before they are finalized. In addition, the timing of any rule changes might vary from the timetables set forth in the agenda. As a result, making changes to compliance programs at this stage is premature. The key point of this new development is that the EEOC has announced what it plans to change, but current employer obligations have not changed yet and, in some cases, may not change even if the EEOC finalizes these proposals.
In May 2026, EEOC submitted a proposal to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to rescind the requirement that employers file the EEO-1 report (as well as the EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, and EEO-5 reports). While the proposed rule has still not been issued, the EEOC’s regulatory agenda indicates that a proposal will be issued in July 2026, with the comment period ending in September 2026. This action was previously announced by the EEOC but continues to leave the status of the current EEO-1 Reporting cycle unclear. Until the proposal is finalized, and because there could be litigation about the EEOC’s decision to end this reporting, Berkshire recommends that employers continue with preparations to file the EEO-1 reports in 2026.
The agenda includes a proposal to revise the EEOC’s Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) regulations. Listed as being at the proposed rule stage, the timetable included notes a notice of proposed rulemaking slated for November 2026, with the comment period ending in January 2027. The abstract included in the agenda is brief, only noting that among other revisions, the EEOC proposes revising language in the regulations regarding the interpretation of the words “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”
Two of the rules included in the agenda propose changes to portions of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP). UGESP provides guidance to employers on how to evaluate employment tests and other selection procedures for adverse impact and show that they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. The first rule related to UGESP that the EEOC has included in the regulatory agenda would rescind the interpretive rulemaking portions of UGESP. This is listed at the final rule stage, with the timetable noting a final action date of November 2026, with an effective date of January 2027. The EEOC includes another rule that would rescind the recordkeeping provisions of UGESP. Under UGESP, employers must retain records that allow them to evaluate the impact of selection procedures and prove validation when necessary. This rule is listed as being at the proposed rule stage, with both the notice of proposed rulemaking date and the comment period end date being listed as July 2026.
It is important to note that even if both these rules are finalized, Title VII remains in place, including the requirement for employers to show that neutral rules, tests and other selection procedures are job-related and consistent with business necessity. Moreover, employers still face a risk from private plaintiffs if their selection procedures result in adverse impact. As a result, employers should continue collecting, maintaining, and evaluating the documentation needed to make this showing.
Three rules listed in the EEOC’s agenda propose withdrawing interpretive guidance documents that the agency considers outdated. The first would rescind the 1980 interpretive rule “The Guidelines on Discrimination Because of National Origin.” In the abstract for the rule, the EEOC writes that the Guidelines are being rescinded because they are “inconsistent with case law and other legal developments since their issuance.” They maintain that the Guidelines presumption that English-only rules in the workplace violate Title VII conflicts with the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which clarified that a plaintiff has the burden of establishing disparate impact.
The next rule would rescind the EEOC’s 1979 interpretive rule related to affirmative action due to being inconsistent with intervening case law. While this is listed in the agenda as being at the final rule stage as of July 2026, the agency already voted at the end of June to rescind the guidance materials.
The last of the rules rescinding interpretive guidance would rescind the appendix to the Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex. This is also from 1979 and was written after the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed, but decades before the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was passed in 2022. The EEOC writes they are rescinding this appendix because it is outdated. This is listed as a final rule as of July 2026, with final action effective August 2026.
The agency has also included three proposed rules that would result in administrative changes. One rule would remove the requirement the EEOC offices (other than Headquarters) keep and make available records in a public reading room. This rule would also adjust the procedures for parties to request copies of their EEOC charge files. The next administrative change would include the list of fair employment practice agencies on EEOC’s website instead of in regulations. The last administrative update is the annual inflation adjustment for the monetary penalty associated with the failure to comply with the posting requirements the EEOC enforces.
Employers should not lose sight of the fact that these are all proposed items for regulation, not final rules. While employers should stay informed regarding the agency’s priorities and what developments might be coming, it is not prudent to start unwinding compliance processes or make procedural changes until rules are finalized.
Employers also need to keep in mind that even if these proposed rules are finalized as written and EEOC guidance is changed or rescinded, the legal requirements set forth in Title VII and existing case law remain unchanged. As a result, even if EEOC’s enforcement priorities change, employers still have existing obligations by law and are still at risk from plaintiff claims. In addition, many states are moving in the opposite direction from the federal government by expanding reporting requirements and other workplace protections. Multi-state employers should continue monitoring state and local laws rather than relying solely on federal changes.
For now, employers should: