EEO-1 Rescission: What the EEOC's 2-1 Vote Means for Employers

By Joanna Colosimo and Fred Satterwhite

BLOG OVERVIEW: On July 21, 2026, the EEOC voted 2-1 to advance a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would rescind the EEO-1 and its related EEO reports. The vote authorizes the Commission to publish the proposal in the Federal Register and open a 30-day public comment period; it does not eliminate any reporting obligation yet, and a final rule must still complete notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act. Employers remain subject to EEO-1 requirements for the 2026 filing cycle for the time being and should keep collecting demographic data, watch for Federal Register publication, and prepare for likely litigation before any rule takes effect.

On July 21, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held an open Commission meeting to consider a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to rescind the EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and EEO-6 reports and their related recordkeeping and record-preservation requirements.

The three commissioners worked through two full rounds of discussion, which included a pointed debate over the substance of the proposal, and a smaller but consequential discussion over how much time the public will get to weigh in on the NPRM, before a roll call vote. Ultimately, Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal voted not to advance the NPRM while Chair Andrea Lucas and Commissioner Brittany Panuccio voted to advance it.

What was Decided

Tuesday’s vote moved the process to rescind the EEO-1 report forward one step by authorizing EEOC to publish the NPRM in the Federal Register and open a formal public comment period. It does not, by itself, eliminate any reporting requirement at this time. A final rule would still need to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Paperwork Reduction Act, including the Commission reviewing and responding to public comments before anything is locked in.

Employers currently subject to EEO-1 and related reporting obligations should continue to treat those obligations as active.

The Case for Rescission

Chair Andrea Lucas, joined by Commissioner Panuccio, made the case that the EEO-1 program has outlived its purpose, indicating that it no longer serves the agency's mission or reflects how the modern workplace operates. Their reasoning centered on six points:

Lucas anchored the proposal in Section 709 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), which authorizes the Commission to require reports only where they are reasonable, necessary, or appropriate for enforcement. In her view, the NPRM identifies substantive problems with the current EEO reports that place them below that threshold.
The blanket annual filing requirement applies to all covered employers regardless of whether discrimination is suspected, which Lucas argued no longer satisfies the reasonable/necessary/appropriate standard. She added that the reports have largely gone unused—"collecting dust," in her words, rather than informing enforcement.
Lucas also raised the possibility that the reports invite racial or sex-based stereotyping, or press employers toward correcting statistical imbalances through race- or sex-conscious action.
Both Lucas and Panuccio argued that compelling aggregate race- and sex-based workforce data implicates equal protection principles, since such classifications are inherently suspect and must be narrowly tailored.
On the cost side, Lucas pointed to an estimated $275 million in employer compliance costs, plus the Commission's own administrative expense, and argued those resources would be better directed toward enforcement.
Finally, both commissioners emphasized that rescission would not curtail the EEOC's ability to seek tailored records, issue subpoenas, or send RFIs in specific investigations.

Kotagal’s Reasons for Dissent

Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal cast the lone "no" vote on the current three-person Commission, pushing back forcefully on both the substance and the timing of the proposal:

Kotagal noted that EEOC has collected workforce demographic data for 60 years and used it to identify discrimination patterns, focus resources, and support investigations, including matters involving Vallarta Food and Bass Pro.
Beyond the agency itself, she pointed out that EEOC staff, state and local civil rights agencies, researchers, and the public all use the data to analyze workforce trends, guide outreach, and highlight disparities.
She also emphasized that the requirement reaches only employers with 100 or more employees, not "...all employers in America," and has existed since 1966 without the constitutional problems the majority described.
Kotagal questioned whether rescission would actually save resources, arguing it could instead force the agency to rely more heavily on case-by-case subpoenas and RFIs.
Employers, she added, would still need to collect and maintain demographic data to comply with Title VII and defend disparate-impact claims, even if the federal EEO-1 filing requirement disappears.
She further argued that the federal data supports self-assessment and state-law compliance, citing Colorado's newer requirements, and warned that rescission could leave employers navigating a patchwork of inconsistent state mandates.
On timing, Kotagal moved to extend the public comment period from 30 to 60 days, citing the NPRM's complexity, significance, and prior agency practice. The motion did not receive a second.

Timing of NPRM

For employers, HR compliance teams, and anyone planning to comment, the timeline is important to watch. The Commission set a 30-day comment period, which is short relative to the 60-day period typically used for rules of this scale and significance.

A 30-day window meaningfully compresses the time available for employers, industry groups, civil rights organizations, and state agencies to develop and submit substantive comments. The Commission will need to consider the comments before finalizing any rule. Whether that shortened window becomes a point of legal or procedural challenge down the line is worth watching as the rulemaking record develops.

Why Does the Short Comment Period Matter?

The 30-day window combines a compressed process and a 2-1 vote in which the majority already stated that the reports are unused and unjustified. That makes it reasonable to expect EEOC to move toward a final rule soon after comments close, rather than treat the NPRM as an extended deliberation.

If the Commission does finalize the rescission on a fast timeline, it is also reasonable to expect legal challenges. Groups opposing the rule would have several plausible avenues under the Administrative Procedure Act and related law, including arguments that:

The Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously by not meaningfully grappling with contrary evidence in the record (for example, the enforcement examples Kotagal cited) or by rescinding a 60-year data collection program without adequately justifying the reversal.
A 30-day comment period was inadequate for a rule of this economic significance and complexity, undermining meaningful notice-and-comment as required by the APA.
The rulemaking record does not support the stated rationale (e.g., cost/benefit, constitutional concerns) with the kind of reasoned analysis courts expect for a change of this magnitude.

None of this is guaranteed, and it is possible the rule will proceed without significant challenge, or that a court upholds the process. But given the voting margin, the dissent's objections, and the shortened comment window, a legal challenge to a final rule seems like a realistic scenario worth watching for in this context. Employers should not treat the current reporting obligations as “all but rescinded” just because the NPRM was adopted; there is more to watch.

Next Steps for Employers

Until the rulemaking process runs its course, employers should stay the course and stay alert:

Do not stop required demographic data collection. Nothing changes for the 2026 filing cycle as a result of this vote alone.
Watch for Federal Register publication of the NPRM, which will start the formal comment clock.
Keep track of the NPRM's deadlines. With only 30 days to comment once it is published, organizations that want to weigh in should plan to move quickly.
Check state and local obligations separately. California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York City, and other jurisdictions have their own demographic reporting requirements that are unaffected by whatever happens at the federal level and, as Commissioner Kotagal noted, may become more prominent if federal reporting goes away.
Expect this to end up in court. Plan for a final rule on a relatively compressed timeline, and for the possibility that it gets challenged in litigation before it is ever enforced.

DCI will continue to monitor this rulemaking as it moves through the Federal Register and public comment process and keep you up to date with new information.