Researchers, advocates rail against government's efforts to end workforce data collection

Civil rights groups and researchers at a public hearing Tuesday called on a federal agency to continue its annual collection of workplace demographic data, arguing that a proposal to end the practice will undermine efforts to fight discrimination.

Twenty-two speakers testified at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's hearing, which lasted more than two hours. Most opposed the proposal to toss a 60-year-old requirement for tens of thousands of private sector employers to submit annual workforce demographic reports to the EEOC, which is responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

Six speakers, however, spoke out in favor the proposal, siding with the Trump administration's stance that reporting such data is burdensome and encourages companies to adopt discriminatory practices to diversify their workforces.

The proposal, currently subject to a 30-day public commentary period ending Aug. 24, is a key step in President Donald Trump's efforts to overhaul the country's civil rights enforcement, particularly stamping out diversity and inclusion practices .

Since 1966, the EEOC has required companies with at least 100 employees, or federal contractors with at least 50 workers, to submit a report each year called an EEO-1 that breaks down gender and racial representation across different roles, from executives to laborers and service workers.

The Republican-led EEOC voted 2-1 last month to stop collecting that data, arguing that the reporting requirement may encourage employers to engage in discriminatory tactics.

Civil rights groups argued the data has been a crucial tool for uncovering systemic discrimination in the workplace and tracking the progress of women and minorities since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"By weakening EEOC enforcement, these changes will harm all workers, but particularly Black workers and other workers of color who continue to face racial discrimination more frequently,” said Amalea Smirniotopoulos, senior policy counsel at the the civil rights group Legal Defense Fund.

Researchers said EEO-1 data has been crucial to their work.

Donald Tomaskovic-Devey, co-director of the University of Massachusetts Amherst's Center for Employment Equity, said he has relied on EEO-1 data for dozens of research articles and two books. He said his research has found that while workplace discrimination has declined since 1964, progress has most recently stalled.

Without EEO-1 metrics, “our society will be flying blind into the future,” he said.

Rachel Lee, president and general counsel of Stand with Asian Americans, said the data has been critical for demonstrating that many Asian Americans rarely reach the highest ranks of many companies, despite comprising a large portion of professional roles.

“The EEO-1 report is the only federal instrument that exposes what we call the bamboo ceiling,” Lee said.

Several conservative advocates, however, criticized the EEO-1 data as outdated and conducive to stereotyping and discrimination.

“It is inconsistent with equal opportunity law, potentially unconstitutional, unnecessary to enforce anti-discrimination laws, and imposes substantial burdens on both employers and the EEOC that are not outweighed by its marginal benefits,” said Rachel Morrison, fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former EEOC attorney.

Morrison pointed out that since EEOC investigates some forms of discrimination not captured in the EEO-1 data, such as religion and pregnancy-related discrimination, the data “is not actually necessary for EEOC to enforce Title VII or fulfill its mission.”

However, two prominent employer groups said there is little evidence that companies have used EEO-1 data to engage in racial quotas or other discriminatory employment practices, as the EEOC under the leadership of its current conservative chair Andrea Lucas argues.

“Regarding the possible misuse of EEO-1 data, we cannot square that with the experience of our members, and I might add with my personal experience,” said David Fortney of the Institute for Workplace Equality, a nonprofit employer association whose members include many of the biggest U.S. companies.

Fortney, a former chief legal officer of the Labor Department under President George H.W. Bush, said many employers instead use EEO-1 data to detect and prevent discriminatory practices. He said the EEOC has not identified any instance of an employer using EEO-1 data for discriminatory purposes.

“Presumably after six decades, if the agency had specific instances, it would have called those out,” Fortney said.

Michael Eastman, of the Center for Workplace Compliance, described examples of how its member companies have used the EEO-1 data to uncover hiring and promotion practices that excluded certain groups.

One large company, he said, found data showed that an employee referral program at a manufacturing facility consistently produced a narrow applicant pool and “a homogenous hiring pattern at the facility.”

Another company, he said, found an “unusual pattern” in its promotion decisions that suggested that managers had misunderstood internal policies to mean race and gender could be considered in promotions.

“These examples reflect what many large employers are trying to do when they use demographic data for compliance purposes,” said Eastman.

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org .