EEOC Data Collection on Race and Sex Could End Under New Federal Proposal

The EEOC data collection program that has tracked workplace demographics for decades may soon come to an end. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the nation’s leading federal agency tasked with promoting fairness and diversity in the workplace, is now proposing to scale back the very initiative that has long defined its mission. The move marks a significant departure from a practice rooted in the civil rights era and has triggered concern among legal experts and former agency leaders.

A Major Shift From Civil Rights-Era Practice

For roughly 60 years, the EEOC has collected demographic information, including race, sex, and national origin, from major American companies. This data collection has been a cornerstone of efforts to identify and address workplace discrimination.

Now, the agency is considering ending that practice entirely. Beyond private companies, the proposal would also eliminate data reporting requirements for apprenticeship programs, labor unions, state and local governments, and schools. It would additionally remove reporting obligations under other civil rights laws designed to protect vulnerable workers, including those who are pregnant or living with disabilities.

The EEOC notified the White House of the proposal on Thursday. After an official review, it will be published publicly. At this stage, it remains unclear how the change might affect this year’s data collection cycle.

Understanding the EEO-1 Report

At the center of this debate is the EEO-1 report. This federal report gathers demographic and job category data from companies with 100 or more employees, as well as certain federal contractors.

Key facts about the EEO-1 report include:

• It has been collected for about 60 years under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
• Data collection typically begins in May each year
• It applies to large employers and specific federal contractors
• It provides insight into workforce composition across industries

Under the Biden administration, the EEOC even pursued legal action against employers that allegedly failed to comply with these federal reporting requirements, underscoring how seriously the data collection was once treated.

Why the Proposal Wasn’t a Surprise

For those who closely follow the EEOC’s work, the move was not entirely unexpected. A five-year contract supporting the data collection expired last year and was not renewed, according to federal contracting records.

Despite the uncertainty, many employment attorneys are advising their clients to continue collecting demographic data as usual. They argue that legal obligations under Title VII remain firmly in place, regardless of shifting agency priorities.

“Employers should continue to collect the information as a best practice, because Title VII obligations are not going away,” said Christy Kiely, a partner at the Seyfarth Shaw law firm. She emphasized that while enforcement may have been deprioritized, the underlying legal framework still exists.

The Connection to Disparate Impact

The proposal aligns with a broader shift in how the current administration approaches discrimination cases. Specifically, it follows the deprioritization of cases involving a legal concept known as “disparate impact.”

Disparate impact is based on the idea that racial or demographic imbalances in the workplace may be the result of discrimination, even when no intentional bias is proven. Critics of the concept argue it makes assumptions about employers, while supporters say it helps reveal hidden patterns of unfairness.

Eliminating the data collection would fulfill one of the goals outlined in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a policy blueprint associated with the current administration. The document argued that categorizing employees strictly by race or ethnicity oversimplifies the diversity of the American workforce.

The Administration’s Stance

Project 2025 author Jonathan Berry, now serving as solicitor for the Department of Labor, has been a vocal advocate of this view. He argued that broad racial and ethnic categories fail to reflect the complex heritage of individual workers.

Berry recently appeared alongside Trump-appointed EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas in an early April webinar, where the two outlined the administration’s priorities in employment law. Lucas, who previously made a public appeal encouraging White men who believe they faced discrimination to contact the agency, told employment lawyers that disparate-impact cases represented only a small portion of the EEOC’s workload.

According to Lucas, the administration wants enforcement agencies to focus on intentional discrimination, which she described as the most morally offensive form. She pointed to a case the EEOC brought against a company whose women’s retreat had excluded a male employee as an example of this priority.

Concerns From Former EEOC Leaders

Not everyone agrees with the proposed change. Several former EEOC leaders have voiced strong opposition, warning that ending the data collection could seriously weaken the federal government’s ability to enforce antidiscrimination laws.

Jenny Yang, a former EEOC chair, explained that demographic data has historically helped the agency identify where discrimination patterns may exist, such as when qualified individuals in the labor pool are underrepresented in a company’s workforce.

Yang and other former leaders issued a statement opposing the proposal. She described the EEO-1 data as extremely valuable, particularly in investigations involving hiring and promotion practices, and warned that removing it would eliminate critical evidence needed to identify problems.

A Possible Contradiction

Some legal experts have pointed out an apparent inconsistency in the agency’s direction. Civil rights and employment lawyer Christine Webber noted that rescinding reporting requirements for companies would seem to conflict with other EEOC efforts to gather data.

For example, the agency has sought demographic information from law firms targeted by the administration and recently won a court battle to request information about Jewish individuals at the University of Pennsylvania as part of an antisemitism investigation.

Webber argued that the EEOC clearly understands how essential data is to its mission. To demonstrate a pattern of discriminatory conduct or decision-making, she explained, reliable data is an indispensable tool.

What This Means Going Forward

If finalized, the end of the EEOC data collection program would represent one of the most significant changes to federal civil rights enforcement in decades. Supporters see it as a move away from rigid racial categorization and a refocusing on intentional discrimination. Critics view it as the removal of a vital tool that has helped expose systemic inequities for generations.

For employers, the immediate advice from legal experts is clear: continue collecting demographic data, since the legal requirements of Title VII remain unchanged.

Final Thoughts

The proposed end of EEOC data collection highlights a deeper national debate over how the United States should measure, monitor, and address workplace discrimination. As the proposal moves through public review, its outcome could reshape the future of civil rights enforcement and influence how fairness in the American workplace is defined for years to come.