Removal of Reporting Requirements
Key claim: The EEOC proposes to rescind the EEO-1 through EEO-6 reporting and related recordkeeping requirements under 29 CFR part 1602, finding the collections inconsistent with equal employment opportunity law, potentially unconstitutional, not narrowly tailored, and more burdensome than beneficial for enforcing anti-discrimination statutes.
Abstract
(Proposed Rule · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) is issuing a proposed rule to rescind and remove the requirements for the filing of the EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and EEO-6 reports, and the recordkeeping and record preservation requirements related to these reports, under 29 CFR part 1602 because it 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 both employers, who must submit these reports annually regardless of any specific allegation or indication of a potential violation of the statutes the EEOC enforces, as well as the Commission. As part of this proposed rule, the Commission also reminds stakeholders that, in a notice of proposed rulemaking issued on November 21, 2024, the Commission proposed incorporating into part 1602 references to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. In the interest of efficiency, the Commission currently intends to include these previously proposed part 1602 revisions in the final rule issued at the conclusion of this rulemaking.
Why this matters
The EEO-1 through EEO-6 reports have for decades been the primary federal mechanism for gathering workforce demographic and (more recently) pay data used to detect systemic discrimination and target enforcement. Rescission would remove a core evidentiary infrastructure relied on by workers, plaintiffs, researchers, and the EEOC itself, while reducing employer compliance burden — a tradeoff whose civil-rights impact turns on how much these collections actually drive enforcement versus impose costs disproportionate to their benefit.