The Trump administration has proposed eliminating a long-standing federal civil rights requirement that mandates companies to report employee demographic data, a move legal experts argue will make it more difficult for workers to raise discrimination concerns and could contribute to a whiter American workplace.
Background of the EEO-1 Rule
Since 1966, most companies have been required to submit demographic data on their employees to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws nationwide. This data collection, known as the EEO-1 report, ensures that companies comply with civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination based on race, gender, and other protected characteristics.
The EEOC proposed last week to end this mandatory data collection. “The decision to no longer collect this data, I think, is part of a larger pattern of the federal government stepping back from its historic role of protecting workers and ensuring equal opportunity in the workplace,” said Amalea Smirniotopoulos, senior policy counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, an organization advocating for equality.
Importance of the Data
The EEO-1 rule promotes transparency, enables companies to analyze their own employment practices, and assists the EEOC in enforcing the law. The data also helps individuals strengthen their discrimination claims. For instance, Bass Pro Shops was forced to pay $10.5 million after the EEOC found a pattern of discrimination against Black and Latino men in hiring. Employees used the demographic data to support their initial complaint.
However, the federal government now argues that collecting and publishing this data constitutes racial discrimination. “The Trump administration is trying to argue that just by collecting the data, you're requiring people to make decisions about who to hire or promote based on race or gender,” Smirniotopoulos said. “And frankly that's just not true.”
Legal Perspectives
Federal law already prohibits companies from making hiring and promotion decisions based on race or gender. Jenny Yang, former EEOC chair during the Obama administration, said current chair Andrea Lucas may be attempting to intimidate employers by falsely suggesting that sharing data could violate civil rights law. “She has suggested that sharing the data with managers could somehow be evidence of discrimination. That is not supported by the law,” Yang stated. “She suggested that publishing aggregate data on your company website could also be evidence that you're taking race or gender into account when making hiring decisions. But that's also not supported by the law.”
The Supreme Court ruled in 1971 that employers could not impose unnecessary job requirements to exclude Black people from promotions. “And that's sort of the core tenet of our anti-discrimination laws,” Yang said. “That you can't build in unnecessary headwinds that exclude people for reasons that aren't job-related. And this administration is trying to push back against that notion.” The case exemplified disparate impact, where a policy disproportionately harms one group regardless of intent.
Impact on Workers
The proposed rescission comes as the Trump administration openly criticizes diversity efforts and promotes the idea that white men are the real victims of workplace discrimination. EEOC chair Andrea Lucas released a video in December urging more white men to file discrimination claims. The agency has opened an investigation into The New York Times after a white male editor claimed he was passed over for a promotion due to his race.
Decades of EEOC data show no disproportionate discrimination against white men. “The data shows Black people, other people of color, women, people with disabilities and LGBTQ+ people are the ones who are qualified for jobs and promotions,” Smirniotopoulos said, “but are being excluded from those opportunities.”
Process and Contradictions
The rule cannot be officially rescinded until the administration completes a formal process including a public comment period. In a contradictory move, the Trump administration is suing colleges and universities for detailed demographic data on students and faculty. The Department of Justice has sued Yale University's medical school, alleging it discriminated against white and Asian applicants in favor of Black and Hispanic applicants.
Companies can use the data to compare their hiring practices with similar organizations, helping identify areas for improvement. Despite the administration's efforts, experts say large companies will likely continue collecting demographic data to avoid violating discrimination laws, though the picture may be incomplete. “It can make it more difficult for industry leaders to make changes, if they do want to increase representation in any number of these demographics,” said Whittney Barth, an employment law professor at Emory University.
Yang believes the EEOC wants to discourage proactive use of data to prevent discrimination. “Some employers may become intimidated or think, 'Maybe it's lower cost not to do it, so let's just stop,'” Yang said. “Or, 'Hey, if we don't have the data, then we can just put our head in the sand.'”
Enforcement Challenges
The EEOC under Trump aims to change the agency's priorities, and rescinding this rule furthers that goal. “If employers stop collecting the data, then they can't produce it if EEOC is doing an investigation,” Yang said. “And then it becomes much more resource-intensive for the agency to recreate the data.”
Enforcing anti-discrimination laws could become more difficult. “By hiding this data, it's going to make it harder for the EEOC, from doing their jobs, from being able to identify employers that are discrimination against Black people, other people of color, against women,” Smirniotopoulos said.
Rescinding the rule is “really setting the agency back significantly,” Yang said. “The American workers are the ones who will experience the harm as a result.”
