EEOC hearing exposes deep divide over ending workforce diversity data

A public hearing on Tuesday laid bare a sharp ideological split over a proposal to end a six-decade-old federal requirement for large employers to report workforce demographics. Of the 22 speakers who testified before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), most urged the agency to preserve the annual EEO-1 filing, arguing it is essential for detecting and deterring workplace discrimination.

The proposal, now in a 30-day public comment period ending August 24, would scrap the requirement for companies with at least 100 employees and federal contractors with 50 or more workers to submit data on gender and racial composition across job categories. The Republican-led commission voted 2-1 last month to advance the change, with conservative members arguing the reporting burden is excessive and may push firms toward discriminatory hiring quotas.

Civil rights advocates countered that the data, collected since 1966, has been a cornerstone of civil rights enforcement. Amalea Smirniotopoulos, senior policy counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, said weakening EEOC enforcement would disproportionately harm Black workers and other workers of color who continue to face frequent discrimination.

Researchers also stressed the value of the dataset. Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, co-director of the University of Massachusetts Amherst's Center for Employment Equity, said he has used EEO-1 data for dozens of studies and two books. His work shows that while workplace discrimination has declined since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, progress has stalled in recent years. Without the data, he warned, "our society will be flying blind into the future."

Rachel Lee, president of Stand with Asian Americans, said the reports are the only federal tool that exposes the "bamboo ceiling" — the barrier preventing many Asian Americans from reaching senior leadership despite strong representation in professional roles.

However, six speakers supported the proposal. Rachel Morrison, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center and former EEOC attorney, called the data outdated, potentially unconstitutional, and unnecessary for enforcing anti-discrimination laws. She noted that the EEOC investigates claims—such as religious and pregnancy discrimination—that are not captured in EEO-1 reports.

Two major employer groups pushed back against the notion that companies misuse the data. David Fortney of the Institute for Workplace Equality, a former Labor Department official, said he knows of no instance where an employer used EEO-1 data for discriminatory purposes. Michael Eastman of the Center for Workplace Compliance described cases where companies used the data to uncover biased hiring and promotion practices, including a manufacturing facility whose referral program produced a narrow, homogenous applicant pool.