EEOC Signals End to Key Federal EEO Reporting Mandates: Timing Uncertain + State Obligations Remain

Takeaways

• The EEOC has proposed rescinding long-standing federal EEO reporting and recordkeeping requirements, including the EEO-1 framework. 
• Any rescission must go through the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process and could face legal challenges, making timing and outcomes uncertain. 
• Even if federal EEO-1 requirements are eliminated, employers may still face state demographic data collection and reporting obligations.

Related links

• EEOC OIRA Proposal Submission
• 29 C.F.R. Part 1602

Article

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has submitted a proposal to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) seeking to rescind long-standing federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) reporting and recordkeeping requirements, including the EEO-1 framework and related obligations tied to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

A finalized rescission would mark a significant shift in the federal employment compliance landscape.

Current Rules Remain in Place, But Timing is Uncertain

Current EEO reporting obligations remain in effect unless and until the EEOC completes the required federal rulemaking process.

Until further guidance is issued, employers with at least 100 employees should preserve EEO-1 reporting readiness and prepare to submit reports if the EEOC opens the reporting portal. The EEOC establishes a filing window and deadline for each annual reporting cycle, which may vary year by year. The EEOC has not yet announced the 2026 dates. In 2025, the filing deadline was June 24.

Why Administrative Procedure Act Matters

The proposal now enters a process governed by both the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Those procedural requirements matter because agencies cannot simply eliminate long-standing regulatory frameworks by announcement alone. Under the APA, rescinding an existing regulation generally requires the same notice-and-comment process to promulgate the rule in the first place.

Under the APA, an agency seeking to reverse an established regulatory position generally must:

• Publish a proposed rule;
• Provide the public an opportunity to comment;
• Consider the administrative record developed during that process; and
• Provide a reasoned explanation for the change.

Although agencies may change policy positions, the APA generally requires them to acknowledge the change and provide a reasoned basis for departing from prior regulatory frameworks.

Courts routinely scrutinize whether agencies adequately justified the reversal, considered reliance interests created by the prior framework, addressed contrary evidence, and acted in a manner that was not arbitrary or capricious. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983).

Agencies rescinding long-standing regulatory frameworks also generally must account for serious reliance interests created by the prior regime, particularly where regulated entities, compliance systems, and enforcement practices have developed around those requirements over time. The latter issue may carry particular significance here given the decades-long role EEO reporting has played in the EEOC’s systemic enforcement and workforce data infrastructure.

That infrastructure also extends beyond federal enforcement. State workforce reporting regimes (including California pay data reporting requirements and the new Massachusetts workforce demographic reporting law) largely build upon the same demographic reporting architecture and workforce classification concepts long reflected in EEO-1 reporting.

What Happens Next

The proposal will undergo OIRA review. If it advances, the EEOC would likely publish a proposed rescission rule in the Federal Register and open a public notice-and-comment period.

The EEOC would also need to navigate the PRA process because EEO-1 reporting is an Office of Management and Budget-approved federal information collection.

The current initiative differs materially from the Trump Administration’s 2017 effort to suspend only the newly added EEO-1 Component 2 pay-data collection through a PRA stay issued by OMB. In National Women’s Law Center v. OMB, No. 1:17-cv-02458 (Feb. 22, 2022), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated that action after concluding the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the suspension. The EEOC’s current proposal instead seeks a formal APA rescission of the broader Component 1 demographic reporting framework itself.

Any final rescission could face legal challenge under the APA.

Timing may also prove significant. Employers are already within the traditional EEO-1 reporting cycle, which historically has involved fall filing deadlines, often around Sept. 30. The EEOC has not yet announced the filing schedule for this year’s EEO-1 cycle, and any rescission effort would still need to proceed through multiple administrative steps before becoming effective. Even if the proposal advances, it remains unclear how long the process could take, particularly given the potential for judicial challenge under the APA. The Labor Department’s still-pending effort to rescind Executive Order 11246 implementing regulations illustrates how unwinding long-standing employment compliance frameworks can extend well beyond the initial announcement of a policy change. (Executive Order 11246 required federal contractors to prohibit employment discrimination and adopt affirmative action and was revoked in 2025 by Executive Order 14173.) Whether the EEOC will proceed with a traditional filing cycle, delay portal operations, or attempt broader changes to federal reporting requirements during this cycle remains unclear.

The EEOC’s not opening the filing portal alone would not formally rescind the underlying regulations. Unless and until the EEOC formally rescinds the governing rules, employers may remain subject to existing recordkeeping obligations even if the agency delays or suspends electronic submission procedures.

Broader Shift

The more significant question is whether workforce demographic compliance is shifting from a centralized federal reporting model to a fragmented system driven by state law, litigation risk, artificial intelligence (AI) governance, and employer-side analytics.

Even absent federal EEO-1 reporting requirements, employers still face potential exposure involving:

• Adverse impact claims;
• Pay equity litigation;
• AI-assisted employment decisions;
• Promotion, hiring, and reduction-in-force analyses; and
• Expanding state reporting and transparency requirements.

States continue expanding their workforce data, pay reporting, and AI-governance frameworks. Examples include pay data reporting requirements in California and Illinois, Massachusetts’ workforce demographic reporting law, and emerging state regulation of AI-assisted employment decision-making.

At the same time, employers increasingly use workforce data for many reasons, such as, reporting compliance, pay equity, validating selection procedures, assessing adverse impact risk, and testing AI-assisted employment systems as part of broader compliance, audit, and litigation-risk assessments.

What Employers Should Do Now

Employers should:

• Preserve EEO-1 reporting readiness while monitoring whether the EEOC opens the filing portal for this cycle; 
• Avoid dismantling demographic data collection systems prematurely;
• Monitor the APA rulemaking process closely; and
• Confirm whether state or local laws, pay reporting requirements, pay equity obligations, or AI-governance frameworks continue to require demographic workforce data collection and analysis.

The EEOC proposal may signal a significant policy shift, but it does not necessarily mean employers should abandon data collection altogether. Whether federal reporting continues, pauses, or changes form, demographic data remains central to state reporting obligations, pay equity and adverse impact analyses, AI-governance controls, and broader workforce compliance efforts.

Employers should assess their reporting and compliance obligations holistically and avoid making significant changes to existing data practices while the rulemaking process unfolds.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are committed to helping employers make the best business decisions. Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney if you have questions or need confidential, forward-looking guidance.