By Fred Satterwhite, Joanna Colosimo, and David Cohen
BLOG OVERVIEW:
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has proposed major changes to the regulations stemming from Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act. As part of the rulemaking process, the agency has collected public comments to which OFCCP must now respond. An analysis of the comments shows overwhelming opposition to the proposed changes.
On July 1, 2025, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) published Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) revising regulations under Executive Order 11246, the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA), and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 503). These revisions follow the revocation of Executive Order 11246 and aim to modernize affirmative action and data collection requirements for individuals with disabilities and veterans.
Key proposed changes to Section 503 regulations include:
As a reminder, OFCCP is not proposing changing data collection and affirmative action obligations under VEVRAA, including protected veteran self-ID and mandatory job listings.
These proposed changes sparked significant public response, culminating in an extended comment period through September 17, 2025. DCI reviewed all public comments related to OFCCP’s NPRM and found that an overwhelming majority of public commenters objected to OFCCP’s proposed changes.
Methodology
Our team collected all public comments from the Section 503 NPRM docket on regulations.gov to assess public sentiment. As of September 23, 2025, the date on which our team began analyzing information, there were 637 unique submissions. The DCI team took these steps:
Results & Trends
After reviewing the submitted comments, we found 612 unique submissions to analyze. Our analysis revealed strong overall opposition to OFCCP’s proposed changes to Section 503:
As a matter of interest, 32% (193) of public comments were based on form letters, often coordinated by advocacy groups, where 68% (419) were unique submissions, reflecting individual or organizational perspectives. Many of the unique submissions included personal testimonies from individuals with disabilities sharing their experiences of navigating challenges in life and employment situations.
Themes Supporting Affirmative Action for Individuals with Disabilities:
Several public comments indicated that the application of the 7% utilization goal and the self-identification process have contributed to changes in hiring practices, resulting in increased employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Some organizations reported, or referenced research stating, that shifts such as disability awareness training and the creation of employee resource groups (ERGs) have led to workplaces that are more supportive of individuals with disabilities. These measures are supplemented by accountability practices based on data; using utilization goals and gathering self-identification data helps employers monitor progress and assess the effectiveness of their inclusion efforts.
Some of the public comments noted that Section 503's requirements are well aligned with the principles of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Employment First initiative, reinforcing a unified approach to disability inclusion. A few commenters noted that from an economic standpoint, expanding employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities not only reduces reliance on public benefits but also increases tax contributions, benefiting society. Furthermore, supportive infrastructure—such as centralized accommodation funds and targeted recruiter training—has played a key role in advancing workplace inclusion, according to some of the public comments.
Commenters noted that the effectiveness of these measures is evident in various outreach campaigns and strategic partnerships, which have collectively helped reduce stigma and increase representation of people with disabilities in the workforce.
Challenges Noted:
Although most of the public comments supported data collection and the disability self-identification process and analysis, some commenters noted that employees are hesitant to self-identify. This could be due to concerns about stigma or potential discrimination, which sometimes contributes to low rates of disclosure.
Some public comments reflected confusion about the scope of the NPRM, with certain individuals mistakenly conflating their provisions with other regulations. This lack of clarity can hinder meaningful engagement with the proposed changes. Moreover, the absence of robust self-identification data creates challenges for employers and regulators alike; without this information, it becomes increasingly difficult to accurately measure the effectiveness of outreach and inclusion efforts. For example, one commenter who supported OFCCP’s proposal to eliminate the collection of voluntary self-ID data for applicants and employees with disabilities urged OFCCP to include detailed clarifications in the final rule about how contractors could measure the effectiveness of their affirmative action programs without such data so that they could comply with the remaining regulatory requirements.
Concluding Thoughts
The overwhelming opposition to OFCCP’s proposed changes to Section 503 underscores the value stakeholders place on data transparency, accountability, and inclusive practices. While the intent to reduce administrative burden is understandable, the proposed elimination of key tools—like the disability self-identification form and 7% disability utilization goal—risks undermining decades of progress in disability inclusion.
As OFCCP reviews these comments, it must weigh the regulatory simplification against the potential erosion of infrastructure to carry out the Congressional charge to the Department of Labor from the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to ensure parties contracting with the federal government “shall take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities.”
It is important to note that an agency’s review of public comments is not intended to be solely a tally of the simple number of “in favor” and “opposed” votes submitted, but rather a thoughtful consideration of the information submitted as a means of determining the potential impact on the American public of the proposed changes to regulations governing them. The overall message from the public comments is clear: disability inclusion requires intentionality, measurement, and commitment. It was clear most individuals and organizations did not support OFCCP’s proposed changes to Section 503 and believe that, if implemented, they would have a significant negative impact on employment and advancement opportunities for Americans with disabilities.
Author’s Note: Thanks to DCI’s team for their time organizing Public Comments, especially Rebekah Bing, Kerry Bocchetto, and Jerilyn Whitmer.