EEOC Votes 2-1 To End Mandatory Race And Gender Workforce Reporting — What Employers And Advocates Should Know

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted 2-1 to eliminate a 60-year-old requirement that many employers report workforce demographics by race and gender. If finalized, the change would make aggregated demographic information companies submit far less accessible to the public, representing a major shift in federal workplace transparency.

What the Vote Means

The move is part of a broader push by the Trump administration to roll back diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives. In recent months, the White House has issued executive orders that dismantled DEIA programs across federal agencies and directed policy toward merit-focused evaluations. While those orders do not directly bind private employers, many firms began scaling back internal DEI programs in early 2025 to align with the new federal posture.

“This move is just the latest in a string of bad decisions being made by a reactionary EEOC under Trump,” said workplace trauma lawyer Michele Simon. “After all, you cannot fix what you cannot see. Without proper enforcement, data collection is less useful, and gaps in data will hamper future administrations trying to restore oversight.”

Implications for Litigation and Enforcement

Labor and employment lawyers warn the change could complicate litigation and oversight. Justin O'Keith Higgs, a senior labor and employment counsel and HR consultant, noted plaintiff-side attorneys often rely on a company’s EEO-1 report to analyze historical trends by race and gender. If aggregate access to that data is curtailed, companies will still need to produce comparable information during discovery, potentially prolonging lawsuits and increasing costs for both sides.

Higgs added that businesses may trade a routine filing burden for a heavier evidentiary one: recreating records later for litigation is typically more time-consuming and expensive than ongoing collection and reporting. He also predicted that vendors who prepare these reports will lobby to preserve demand for their services.

Workplace and Social Impact

Advocates say removing the reporting requirement could undermine efforts to identify and correct discriminatory patterns. Simon warned the change could embolden employers already disinclined to comply with civil-rights laws. Higgs observed recent layoffs disproportionately affecting people of color, particularly Black women, and cautioned that economic downturns could amplify such disparities.

Supporters of workplace diversity note diverse teams drive innovation and better decision-making. As Higgs put it, homogeneous workforces risk stagnation: when everyone thinks and acts the same way, organizations forfeit creativity and resilience.

State Requirements And Employer Action

The federal adjustment would not eliminate all demographic reporting. Several states, including California and Illinois, maintain their own requirements for workforce demographic and pay data. Companies with employees in those jurisdictions will still face state-level obligations, and many employers have practical reasons to keep voluntary self-identification systems to defend against discrimination claims.

Experts urge employers not to stop collecting demographic data. Simon said nothing prevents employers from continuing voluntary collection and reminded employers that federal civil-rights statutes remain in force even if agency enforcement and interpretation change. Higgs warned that companies that stop collecting data risk creating evidentiary gaps they will later have to reconstruct at greater cost.

Bottom line: The EEOC vote would reduce federal transparency in workforce demographics, but state laws and practical legal considerations will push many employers to continue collecting and retaining race and gender data voluntarily.

Originally published on Forbes.com.