EEOC Proposes Broad Rescission of Certain EEO Workforce Reporting Requirements, by Jennifer E. Sherven, Esq., 6-8-2026

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently submitted a proposed rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) within the Office of Management and Budget for regulatory review that, if later published and finalized, would rescind a broad set of federal workforce demographic reporting requirements.

What the Proposal Would Change
The proposal is titled “Rescission of EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and Reporting Requirement Under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the PWFA,” indicating that the EEOC has proposed rescinding multiple reporting requirements rather than a single form or filing category. The public posting currently reflects the rule title and rule information, but not the proposed text.  

Although reporting changes of this magnitude would be significant, the proposal does not alter employer obligations today. Current reporting requirements remain in effect unless and until the EEOC completes the rulemaking process and a final rule becomes effective.

What Employers Report Today
Under the current framework, covered employers generally submit workforce demographic data to the EEOC on a recurring basis through the agency’s reporting system. The most familiar filing is the EEO-1 report, which generally applies to private employers with 100 or more employees and certain federal contractors that employ at least 50 employees and meet applicable contract thresholds. Covered employers report workforce demographic data by race, ethnicity, sex, and job category. The EEOC has historically used this information for enforcement, investigative, and workforce trend analysis purposes.

The EEOC’s proposal suggests that the agency may be reconsidering not only the EEO-1, but also other workforce reporting categories associated with different employer groups and statutory frameworks. That makes the proposal especially notable for employers that have historically treated EEOC demographic reporting as a fixed annual compliance obligation.

Why the Proposal Matters
If finalized, the rule could materially reduce or eliminate certain federal workforce reporting obligations that employers have long used for compliance tracking, benchmarking, and internal audit purposes. It may also affect how employers structure internal data-collection processes and how they prepare for related audits, investigations, or government inquiries.

The proposal may also have implications beyond private employers because it appears to target the EEO-3 reporting framework applicable to certain local unions and referral unions. Historically, those reports have required demographic information relating to union membership, applicants, and referrals. If rescinded, the change could affect how workforce and referral data are collected and analyzed in unionized industries, particularly in sectors where hiring and referral practices have historically received regulatory scrutiny.

At the same time, employers should not assume that a rescission of EEOC reporting would eliminate all demographic data obligations. Depending on the business, employers may still need workforce data for state reporting, affirmative-action analyses, litigation defense, internal diversity metrics, or contractual obligations. The practical impact will likely vary by employer size, industry, and geography.

Employer Action Items
For now, employers should continue complying with existing EEOC reporting obligations, including annual workforce demographic reporting requirements such as the EEO-1 report, and maintain their ordinary reporting and compliance calendars pending further developments. They should also monitor for publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register, which would begin the public-comment process.

In the meantime, employers may want to:

• Review current EEO reporting workflows and identify who owns data collection, validation, and submission.
• Confirm that demographic data systems remain accurate and accessible in case the current reporting regime remains in place for the upcoming cycle.
• Consider whether any internal reporting practices should be adjusted if the rule is finalized.

Track related state, local, and contractual reporting requirements that would not necessarily be affected by a federal rescission.

Author:
Jennifer E. Sherven
Partner