States Urge EEOC to Preserve Workforce Demographic Reporting
Portland, OR –Eight civil rights enforcement agencies, including the District of Columbia’s, provided a joint comment urging the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to preserve longstanding federal workforce demographic reporting requirements that help agencies identify and address employment discrimination.
In joint comments submitted August 24, 2026, in response to EEOC Docket No. EEOC-2026-0034, the agencies opposed the proposed rescission of Equal Employment Opportunity workforce demographic reporting requirements, including the EEO-1 report.
For six decades, EEO workforce data has provided federal, state, and local civil rights agencies, employers, policymakers, and the public with information about patterns of representation across industries, regions, and occupations. The data does not identify individual employees, but can help reveal broader disparities and inform enforcement, education, outreach, and policy decisions.
”Oregon stands with every worker who risks being made invisible by this change,” said Oregon Labor Commissioner Christina Stephenson. “When the federal government removes the data that reveals disparities, that doesn’t mean the disparities disappear; it means the people most harmed by discrimination are easier to ignore. We will not allow those workers to be pushed into the shadows.”
“Every worker deserves a fair opportunity to succeed, and effective enforcement requires the tools to protect that opportunity,” said Illinois Department of Human Rights Director James Bennett. “As federal efforts continue to chip away at civil rights protections, Illinois is proud to stand with our state and federal partners in a unified effort to defend equal opportunity and protect the American people and employers we serve.”
The agencies argue that ending the collection would reduce transparency and eliminate an important baseline for assessing whether workforce disparities reflect broader labor-market conditions or potential discrimination. They also reject the premise that collecting demographic information encourages discrimination, noting that identifying disparities does not create them.
“Eliminating Equal Employment Opportunity reporting represents yet another significant step in dismantling our nation’s civil rights enforcement framework,” said Minnesota Department of Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero. “Everyone has a right to a discrimination-free workplace, and ending workforce data collection will make it harder to root out discrimination where it persists. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights proudly joins other states in rejecting changes that erode essential civil rights protections.”
Rescinding the federal requirement could shift rather than eliminate costs. State and local civil rights agencies would still need workforce information to investigate discrimination complaints, potentially requiring employers to produce it individually. Without centralized federal collection, employers operating across multiple jurisdictions could face a patchwork of separate state and local requirements.
The comments were jointly submitted by civil rights agencies representing Oregon, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia. The agencies urged the EEOC to modernize the reporting system where appropriate rather than eliminate it.
“In the District, protecting equal opportunity means having the information we need to understand where barriers exist and address them,” said Washington D.C. Office of Human Rights Interim Director Elizabeth Fox-Solomon. “Preserving EEO-1 data helps us support compliance, strengthen enforcement, and make sure discrimination and disparities do not go unseen in the communities we serve.”
“We should never confuse the absence of data with the absence of discrimination,” said Cleveland L. Horton II, Executive Director Maryland Commission on Civil Rights. “If we choose not to measure inequity, inequity does not disappear—it simply becomes easier to deny. Civil rights enforcement requires us to be willing to see what is uncomfortable, confront what is unequal, and act when the evidence demands it. Progress has never been achieved by looking away.”
“Modernization and efficiency are worthwhile goals, but they should strengthen civil rights enforcement and not leave agencies, employers, and workers with less information,” said IDHR Senior Policy Advisor Jason Rosensweig. “Illinois is proud to stand with our partners across the country in protecting the successful tools that help make equal employment opportunity meaningful.”
"Taking away national demographic reporting will make it significantly harder for agencies and employers to see where inequities persist,” said Oregon Civil Rights Division Administrator Michael Wood. “Without this data, we lose one of the most practical tools we have to identify problems early, focus resources effectively, and prevent small issues from becoming systemic barriers.”
Review the Joint Statement Here
###
The District of Columbia Office of Human Rights enforces the D. C. Human Rights Act of 1977 and other local and federal civil rights laws. DCOHR's mission is to eradicate discrimination, advance equal opportunity, and protect the human rights of individuals who live in, work in, or visit the District of Columbia.
The Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) is a state agency that enforces and strengthens protections against discrimination set forth in the Illinois Human Rights Act. Founded in 1979 with the signing of the Act, the Illinois Department of Human Rights has led the state in protecting civil rights since its establishment.
The Maryland Commission on Civil Rights enforces Maryland's Anti-Discrimination Act, State Government Article, Title 20, Annotated Code of Maryland. Founded in 1927, the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights' Vision "is to have a state that is free from any trace of unlawful discrimination."
The Michigan Department of Civil Rights is a state agency that enforces the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, the Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act, and other federal civil rights laws. The mission of the Michigan Department of Civil Rights is to eliminate unlawful discrimination through Enforcement, Education, Engagement, and Equity.
The Minnesota Department of Human Rights is the state of Minnesota's civil rights enforcement agency. We are charged with upholding the civil rights of Minnesotans by enforcing the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Passed into law in 1967, it is one of the strongest civil rights laws in the country.
The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, a division of the New Jersey Office of Attorney General, is charged with enforcing New Jersey's civil rights laws, including the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJ LAD), the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA), the Fair Chance in Housing Act (FCHA), and the recently enacted John Lewis Voter Empowerment Act. The LAD, one of the oldest and most comprehensive anti-discrimination laws in the country, prohibits discrimination and harassment based on actual or perceived race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, disability, and other protected characteristics. The mission of OCR is to protect the people of New Jersey from discrimination and bias-based harassment in employment, housing, and public accommodations.
The New York State Division of Human Rights enforces the New York State Human Rights Law by investigating discrimination, holding violators of the law accountable, and helping those whose rights have been violated. Our work and mission are to eliminate discrimination, hate, and bias; remedy injustice; and promote equal opportunity, access, and dignity for all New Yorkers.
The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, established in 1903, is Oregon's sole enforcement agency with respect to state and federal laws that prohibit workplace discrimination. The Bureau provides extensive protections against a range of unlawful discrimination, in the workplace and elsewhere.
|
