Why the US may stop collecting workplace race and gender data

In a 2-1 vote, the Republican majority on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) voted to roll back a six-decade-old requirement under an anti-discrimination law in the United States that requires employers to submit annual data on the racial and gender composition of their workforces.

Following Tuesday’s vote, there is now a 30-day public comment period before the proposal heads to final approval with a hearing on August 11.

Here’s what you need to know.

What is the EEOC?

Created in 1965, the EEOC is the US federal agency responsible for enforcing workplace anti-discrimination laws. The agency investigates employers accused of discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. It investigates roughly 88,000 complaints each year.

In addition to investigating complaints, the EEOC collects workforce demographic data, including employers’ racial and gender breakdowns, to monitor broader workforce trends and identify systemic discrimination. The data are widely used by policymakers and other researchers.

The agency is currently led by Andrea Lucas, who previously served as an EEOC commissioner before becoming acting chair when President Donald Trump took office. She has been a vocal critic of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. In 2023, she authored an essay for the Reuters news agency arguing that companies should take a “hard look” at their DEI programmes following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision striking down affirmative action in higher education, which limited the use of race in college admissions.

There is only one Democrat remaining on the commission, Kalpana Kotagal, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2022.

What is the rule the EEOC wants to get rid of?

The requirement is known as the EEO-1 report. It collects aggregate demographic data from employers representing roughly 50 million workers across the US. The reports do not identify individual employees by name; instead, they collect information such as race and gender.

Lucas argued that the reporting requirement is “in direct tension with Title VII’s requirement that employment practices be colourblind,” adding that it “risks hindering effective enforcement but also raises constitutional concerns”, according to remarks she posted on LinkedIn following the vote.

Sharon Block, executive director at the Centre for Labour and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School, pushed back on that assertion.

“EEO reports just provide the government with a snapshot of the makeup of the workforce. These reports don’t compel employers to hire or not hire anyone. It is data — no employer or federal government should be afraid of sharing data,” Block told Al Jazeera. She has previously served on the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) — the independent agency responsible for enforcing workers’ rights to organise and challenge unfair labour practices — under former President Barack Obama, a Democrat.

Lucas said the agency would continue to require demographic data when investigating companies accused of discriminatory practices. She also said compiling the reports costs employers an estimated $275m annually, while administering the programme costs the EEOC about $4m each year.

Why is the data important?

The data helps researchers and policymakers better understand the demographic makeup of the US workforce, measure progress over time, and identify areas where disparities remain.

“Rescission of these valuable data collections will undermine the EEOC’s ability to evaluate and investigate charges that have been filed with it, as well as to tailor its outreach and guidance to industries or areas where evidence indicates barriers may exist,” EEO Leaders, a coalition of former EEOC officials, said in a statement to Al Jazeera.

For example, EEOC data has documented changes in the number of women serving in senior management and executive positions at major companies. In 2013, women held 29.2 percent of executive-level roles. By 2023, that figure had increased to 34.5 percent.

The data also shows that Black and Hispanic men remain underrepresented in executive leadership. While white men make up roughly one-third of the US workforce, they account for 52.7 percent of executive-level positions.

It has also highlighted industries with significant gender disparities. A 2022 report showed that between 2014 and 2022 women made up less than 23 percent of workers in the technology sector. Women account for 59.6 percent of employees in the finance and insurance industries but hold only 33.1 percent of executive-level roles.

“If adopted as a final rule, the proposal would deprive employers of information about their industries that can provide early-warning signals of potential discrimination in their own workplaces,” EEO Leaders continued.

Will ending the data impact investigations?

The EEOC argues that it will not. The agency says it will continue requesting demographic data during investigations into alleged discriminatory practices.

“In any particular investigation, the EEOC can issue a request for information seeking demographic data. However, if the employer hasn’t been keeping the data, it may be difficult for them to provide that data,” Chai Feldblum, president of EEO Leaders and a former EEOC commissioner under President Obama, told Al Jazeera.

Title VII still requires employers to maintain workforce records in the event they are investigated for alleged discrimination.

Although the EEOC cannot publicly release an individual company’s EEO-1 data, it can publish the information in aggregate form.

Separately, last year, 24 companies in the S&P 100 voluntarily disclosed their workforce demographic data.

What other labour protections have been scrapped under Trump?

The proposed rollback is far from isolated. Trump rescinded a mandate asking federal contractors to comply with affirmative action requirements.

Under the executive order issued in January 2025, employers must still comply with civil rights laws, but are no longer required to develop workforce diversity programmes or affirmative action plans.

The administration has also moved to dismantle DEI programmes across the federal government while putting pressure on private-sector employers, arguing that some corporate DEI policies may violate federal anti-discrimination laws. Lucas, for example, earlier this year encouraged white men to file complaints alleging workplace discrimination on the basis of race and gender.

“The Trump Administration’s proposal to roll back requirements that employers share information about the race and sex of their workforces is not surprising but is still very disappointing. It fits with the pattern of how this administration approaches working people — it doesn’t seem to want to know even basic information about the challenges that working people are facing,” Block added.

Trump has also rolled back Biden-era wage protections, including reversing an executive order that required many federal contractors to pay workers a minimum wage of $17.75 an hour, adjusted annually for inflation. The Biden administration had introduced the raise after Congress failed to pass an increase to the federal minimum wage.

The Department of Labor under Trump has also moved to limit collective bargaining rights for federal employees, arguing the changes are necessary to improve government efficiency and protect national security. Labour unions have challenged the moves in court, arguing they undermine longstanding rights for federal workers.

The NLRB currently lacks a quorum to fully operate. The typically five-member board does not have the minimum three members required to issue decisions on cases and appeals, limiting its ability to establish new labour law precedent.