Back in July, we discussed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) proposal to eliminate EEO-1 reporting requirements and the agency’s rationale for doing so. On August 11, the EEOC held a two-hour public hearing that brought together employers, academics, civil rights advocates, policy organizations, and a former EEOC General Counsel to weigh in on the proposal. While the testimony revealed sharp disagreements over the value of workforce demographic reporting, the arguments largely boiled down to a simple question: what happens when we stop counting?
To Count or Not to Count?
At its core, the debate is about whether EEO-1 reporting requirements, which for decades have required many employers to submit workforce demographic data to the government, remain a vital tool for identifying workplace discrimination or whether it has become an unnecessary and potentially harmful regulatory burden.
Those opposing the proposal, including the Legal Defense Fund, the National Partnership for Women & Families, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the ACLU (represented by former EEOC General Counsel and current Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Disability Rights Program, Karla Gilbride), argued that EEO-1 data helps the EEOC detect systemic discrimination, prioritize limited enforcement resources, support investigations, and identify workplace trends that may not be apparent from individual complaints. Several speakers pointed to past EEOC enforcement actions in which EEO-1 data helped uncover potentially unlawful hiring disparities (see here).
Supporters of the proposal see things differently. Organizations including The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, Do No Harm, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the 1792 Exchange, and the Pacific Legal Foundation countered that anti-discrimination laws can be enforced through targeted investigations and case-specific requests for information without requiring all covered employers to report workforce demographics year after year. In their view, the EEO-1 reports merely reveal outcomes but not the reasons behind them.
Does Data Collection Prevent Discrimination or Promote It?
If there was one issue that generated the most direct disagreement, it was whether collecting EEO-1 data prevents discrimination or has the opposite effect.
Supporters of eliminating EEO-1 reporting argued that government-mandated classification of employees by race and sex encourages “category thinking” and incentivizes employers to evaluate their workforce through a demographic lens, creating a risk that employers will feel pressured to focus on demographic balancing rather than employment decisions based solely on merit. In other words, EEO-1 reporting induces employers to make employment decisions based on protected characteristics – directly undermining Title VII and the EEOC’s mission.
Multiple opponents disagreed, emphasizing that collecting data is not the same as making employment decisions based on protected characteristics. They argued that demographic reporting is a neutral fact-gathering tool that helps identify potentially unlawful practices. As several speakers observed, eliminating reporting requirements would not eliminate discrimination but would instead make it more difficult to detect and remedy.
Employers Are Not Speaking with One Voice
The hearing also highlighted differing views within the employer community. The Center for Workplace Compliance, whose members collectively file thousands of EEO-1 reports each year, explained that employers hold mixed views. Some employers question whether the value of the reports justifies the compliance burden. Others see demographic data as a useful self-audit tool that helps identify potentially discriminatory patterns before they become investigations, lawsuits, or public controversies.
One example discussed involved an employer that used workforce demographic data to identify a potential disparate impact arising from an internal program. Because the issue was identified early, the employer was able to review and adjust the program before any legal challenge emerged.
Similarly, The Institute for Workplace Equality, which represents many of the nation’s largest employers, opposed eliminating EEO-1 reporting altogether and urged the EEOC to focus instead on how demographic data is collected, maintained, and used. Several other stakeholders struck a similar note, suggesting that modernization rather than elimination may be the better path forward. Those speakers advocated improving reporting processes and reducing administrative burdens while preserving the underlying data collection framework.
What Employers Should Watch
The August 11 hearing made clear that the debate extends well beyond the EEO-1 form itself. At stake are broader questions about how workplace discrimination should be identified, what role demographic data should play in enforcement, and how employers can evaluate compliance risks in an increasingly complex legal environment.
For now, the process continues. The EEOC Commissioners did not vote on the proposal at the hearing, and period to submit written comments remains open through August 24, 2026. Following the comment period, the EEOC will decide whether to move forward with rescission.
Whatever happens next, employers should remember that Title VII recordkeeping obligations are not going away and that workforce demographic data will likely continue to play a significant role in compliance, investigations, and litigation.
