Articles

Employment Law Update: EEOC's EEO-1 Reporting Requirements Likely to End

Date: September 9, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the EEOC issued a proposed rule to rescind and remove the regulation that currently requires employers of over 100 employees, and most Federal contractors with at least 50 employees, to file an annual demographic job-category report (the “EEO-1”) identifying employer workforces by race, gender and ethnicity. The Federal Register proposal summary explains: the EEOC “has preliminarily determined that the reports are inconsistent with equal employment opportunity law and potentially unconstitutional. It further finds the data collected is not narrowly tailored, is unnecessary to enforce anti-discrimination laws, and at a minimum, that any marginal benefits are outweighed by the substantial burdens imposed on employers . . . regardless of any specific allegations or indication of potential violation [of law].”

A public comment period closed on August 24, four weeks after the Federal Register announcement. In this short period, 2,856 comments were received, many opposing the change as eroding anti-discrimination enforcement, and many from businesses highlighting the expense, inconvenience and unproven effectiveness. 

A number of State anti-discrimination agencies co-authored an opposition letter, filed on August 24, 2026, stating that the reporting requirements had served a vital enforcement and preventative purpose. (Maryland, DC, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon). On September 1, 2026, Cleveland Horton, Executive Director of the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, observed in reference to the proposed rule change, “If we choose not to measure inequity, inequality does not disappear - it simply becomes easier to deny.”

Support for the rule change was equally firm. By example, the America First Institute wrote: “A law enacted to predict and prohibit discrimination has become the basis for reporting regimes that pressure employers to continually measure their workforces and their employment decisions by race and sex.” Comments from industry mirrored those of the EEOC that the reporting had “marginal benefits outweighed by the substantial burdens.”

The EEO-1 reporting requirements were established by regulation in 1966 and were expanded over time to include more extensive reporting (“EEO-2” to “EEO-9”). The reporting requirements were established by EEOC regulations, voluntarily established by the Agency, and not required by Federal Statute.

There is a faint possibility that the proposed change will be retracted, noting the current Administration’s public announcements. So too, the unusually short comment period reflects an Agency urgency for action, with a clear posture indicated in the Rule summary.

A challenge for employers may come in the future if a new administration is elected and a return to EEO-1 reporting occurs. Clearly, the issue of mandatory reporting will continue at the forefront of anti-discrimination dialogue. 

Whiteford’s Labor and Employment Practice Group will continue to monitor developments in this rapidly evolving area and advise clients as further guidance emerges.
The information contained here is not intended to provide legal advice or opinion and should not be acted upon without consulting an attorney. Counsel should not be selected based on advertising materials, and we recommend that you conduct further investigation when seeking legal representation.