Thank you for this opportunity to testify. My name is Jocelyn Frye, and I am President of the National Partnership for Women & Families. Throughout our entire 55-year history, our nonpartisan organization has advocated for equal employment opportunity and economic justice for women and all workers. Our work has included advancing the critical mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to combat employment discrimination.
The National Partnership strongly opposes the proposed rule to rescind requirements for filing EEO demographic data collection reports,i including the EEO-1 form. The proposed rescission is harmful, ill-advised, and counter-productive. It would undermine effective enforcement practices, equal employment opportunity for women and other workers, and the agency’s longstanding commitment to root out all forms of discrimination.
For more than 60 years, the EEOC has required employers with at least 100 employees to report workforce demographic data annually using the EEO-1 form.ii This requirement has proven to be a reliable and powerful enforcement tool used consistently by every administration.iii
Even the current administration has used EEO-1 data to settle cases alleging widespread sex discrimination in hiring, securing millions of dollars for American workers.iv
The arguments put forward to justify the proposed rescission are misleading, devoid of context, and deeply problematic.
The proposal attempts to redefine discrimination by mischaracterizing the collection of data by categories such as race and sex as inherently discriminatory and impermissible. But the act of collecting data does not cause discrimination, and refusing to collect data does not make discrimination go away. Rather, the loss of EEO-1 data will reduce visibility into employment practices and make discrimination harder to detect and civil rights laws harder to enforce.
The proposal complains that collecting EEO data unfairly focuses attention on workers of color and women – but largely ignores the broader context and realities of our workplaces. It says little about how discrimination against women workers, workers of color – and Black workers, in particular – led to laws such as Title VII. There is no mention of the EEOC’s own data that show most sex and race discrimination charges are filed by women and people of color.
Blaming data because they reveal uncomfortable disparities – or tell a story that is different from a preferred narrative – does not justify rescinding an effective enforcement tool.
The proposal speculates that the mere collection of disaggregated data promotes misuse and illegal action by employers. Yet, it puts forward no compelling evidence to support this claim.
The proposal overreaches to allege that the gathering of disaggregated data triggers constitutional concerns. But merely collecting and reporting data is not the same as conferring a race- or sex-based benefit. Such an overbroad analysis is dangerous and – if adopted – could jeopardize critical federal data collection efforts, not only in employment but also in other contexts.
The proposal disregards clear evidence documenting the value of EEO-1 data. It also minimizes the proposal’s far-reaching effects by arguing that the EEOC would continue to collect data from individual employers facing specific charges. But the absence of the EEO-1 data collection would still be burdensome and costly, and it would slow down investigations requiring requests for data that would have been on-hand.
Furthermore, this proposal would curb the agency’s ability to pursue Commissioner charges, class actions, and systemic cases, which often start or progress without charges – and which the EEOC itself has noted it is uniquely positioned to bring.v
The EEOC has an extraordinary mission to enforce discrimination laws for millions of workers who lack the resources to challenge their employers.vi The agency needs every tool available.
I urge the Commission to withdraw this proposal and reorient the agency toward advancing its mission of protecting all workers from discrimination.
Footnotes
i. The proposed rule seeks to remove requirements for filing multiple reports, including the EEO-1, EEO-2, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5, and EEO-6 reports. Removal of Reporting Requirements, 91 Fed. Reg. 46333 (proposed July 23, 2025) (to be codified 29 C.F.R. pt. 1602).
ii. Employer Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, 31 Fed. Reg. 2832, 2833 (Feb. 17, 1966) (codified at 29 CFR 1602.7).
iii. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Evaluation of Compensation Data Collected Through the EEO-1 Form. 2023. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26581
iv. EEOC Reaches Early $5.5 Million Resolution With Central Transport Over Nationwide Sex Discrimination in Hiring, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-reaches-early-55-million-resolution-central-transport-over-nationwide-sex (last visited Aug. 7, 2026); Republic Services to Pay $200,000 in EEOC Sex Discrimination Lawsuit, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/republic-services-pay-200000-eeoc-sex-discrimination-lawsuit. (Aug. 7, 2026).
v. Systemic Task Force Report to the Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, https://www.eeoc.gov/systemic-task-force-report-chair-equal-employment-opportunity-commission (last visited Aug. 7, 2026).
vi. Overview, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, https://www.eeoc.gov/overview (last visited Aug. 7, 2026); Fiscal Year 2026 Congressional Budget Justification, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, https://www.eeoc.gov/fiscal-year-2026-congressional-budget-justification (last visited Aug. 7, 2026).