The Trump administration's push to scrap a 60-year-old workplace demographic reporting requirement sparked sharp divisions at a federal hearing Tuesday, with prominent employer groups contradicting the EEOC's core justification for killing the data collection.
Twenty-two speakers testified at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's hearing, which lasted more than two hours. The agency voted 2-1 last month to stop requiring tens of thousands of private sector employers to submit annual workforce demographic reports, a practice dating back to 1966. The proposal is currently subject to a 30-day public commentary period ending Aug. 24.
The Republican-led EEOC argues that the reporting requirement may encourage employers to engage in discriminatory tactics. But two major employer associations pushed back hard on that claim, saying they've found no evidence companies have misused the data for racial quotas or discrimination—and that the EEOC itself hasn't identified a single instance of such abuse.
The Core Business Disagreement
David Fortney of the Institute for Workplace Equality, whose members include many of the biggest U.S. companies, said the agency's theory doesn't match reality. "Regarding the possible misuse of EEO-1 data, we cannot square that with the experience of our members, and I might add with my personal experience," Fortney testified. He's a former chief legal officer of the Labor Department under President George H.W. Bush. "Presumably after six decades, if the agency had specific instances, it would have called those out."
Michael Eastman of the Center for Workplace Compliance described how member companies have actually used the data. One large manufacturer discovered that an employee referral program "consistently produced a narrow applicant pool and a homogenous hiring pattern at the facility." Another company found an "unusual pattern" in promotion decisions. These examples, Eastman said, reflect what large employers are doing: using demographic data for compliance and to prevent discrimination, not encourage it.
The disconnect matters. If the EEOC's rationale for eliminating the data is flawed—if companies aren't actually abusing it—then the agency is removing a tool that employers themselves say helps them catch and correct discriminatory practices.
The Regulatory Burden Argument
Conservative advocates supporting the proposal framed it differently. Rachel Morrison, fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former EEOC attorney, argued the data is outdated and imposes substantial burdens on employers and the agency without justifying the costs. She noted that the EEOC investigates forms of discrimination not captured in the EEO-1 data, such as religion and pregnancy-related discrimination. "It is not actually necessary for EEOC to enforce Title VII or fulfill its mission," Morrison said.
This argument highlights a legitimate tension in regulatory policy: whether data collection requirements justify their administrative costs, especially when other enforcement mechanisms exist. The EEOC would continue investigating discrimination complaints even without the EEO-1 reports.
Opposition and the Research Question
Civil rights groups and researchers opposed the elimination. Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, co-director of the University of Massachusetts Amherst's Center for Employment Equity, said he's relied on EEO-1 data for dozens of research articles and two books. His research has found that while workplace discrimination declined since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "progress has most recently stalled." Without the data, he warned, "our society will be flying blind into the future."
Rachel Lee, president and general counsel of Stand with Asian Americans, said the data has exposed what she called the "bamboo ceiling"—the rarity of Asian Americans reaching the highest ranks despite comprising a large portion of professional roles. "The EEO-1 report is the only federal instrument that exposes" this pattern, Lee testified.
Amalea Smirniotopoulos, senior policy counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, argued that eliminating the data would harm workers of color who continue to face discrimination. Six speakers at the hearing sided with the Trump administration's position that the reporting requirement is burdensome.
Why This Matters:
This dispute reveals a genuine policy question about regulatory efficiency and unintended consequences. The administration frames the data collection as a burden that may encourage discrimination. But major employer groups—the actual regulated entities—say they use the data to prevent discrimination and haven't seen the abuse the EEOC warns about. If those businesses are right, then the agency is eliminating a tool that serves its own enforcement mission without clear evidence of harm. Conversely, if the data truly drives discriminatory behavior, that's a serious concern. The 30-day comment period will determine whether the EEOC's theory holds up under scrutiny, or whether the agency proceeds without the empirical foundation its own regulated community says it lacks. The outcome affects how workplace compliance actually works in practice.