Our Take
The rescission proposal is real and under OMB review, but employers treating it as a done deal will face legal exposure: the rule change requires a 60-day comment period and Federal Register publication before it takes effect, and the 2026 filing deadline stands until formally cancelled.
Why it matters
HR leaders managing national compliance now face a fractured landscape where federal reporting may vanish but state mandates (California, Illinois) remain and tighten. The administrative timeline means 2026 data collection is still the baseline—betting it won't happen is a risk.
Do this week
HR Compliance: Maintain your EEO-1 data collection pipeline through the 2026 cycle (snapshot period in Q4 2025, filing spring/summer 2026) until a final rule publishes in the Federal Register, so you can avoid the legal exposure that derailed the 2019 non-filing attempt.
EEOC Files Rescission Proposal, But 2026 Filing Deadline Stands
On May 14, 2026, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission submitted a formal proposal to the White House to eliminate mandatory EEO-1 reporting, a federal requirement since 1966. The proposal targets removal of multiple forms (EEO-1, EEO-3, EEO-4, EEO-5) and requires submission to the Office of Management and Budget before it can advance. Currently under OMB review, the proposal aligns with Project 2025 recommendations to reduce DEI reporting mandates.
The timeline matters. Before any rule becomes effective, the proposal must survive a 60-day public comment period following OMB approval, then be published in the Federal Register. Until that final rule is published, the existing EEO-1 obligation remains law. HR professionals should continue workforce demographic data collection based on the standard snapshot period (typically a Q4 pay period). Most legal experts advise that skipping the 2026 filing is a high-risk bet: in 2019, the EEOC attempted to skip data collection without completing the rule change process and faced lawsuits that forced the government to collect the missing data anyway.
Rescission Removes Federal Pay Data Transparency But Hands Enforcement to States
The proposal directly addresses "Component 2" of EEO-1, which has been contested in legal battles for years. Component 2 required employers to disclose hours worked and pay band information, creating a federal picture of pay equity across job categories. Removing the reporting requirement ends the federal visibility into systemic pay discrimination patterns.
However, responsibility for monitoring pay equity has not disappeared—it has fragmented. California and Illinois have already implemented more rigorous state-level pay reporting requirements. National employers will need to track the same demographic and pay data to comply with state mandates, even if federal EEO-1 reporting ends. This creates a compliance environment where data collection burdens shift from a single federal standard to a patchwork of state rules, making audit and consolidated reporting more complex.
Treat the 2026 Filing Deadline as Mandatory Until Rescission is Final
Do not assume the rescission will be completed by the 2026 filing deadline. Administrative rule changes are slower than press cycles. Maintain your demographic tracking systems, verify data accuracy for the standard snapshot period, and plan to file on schedule when the EEOC opens the portal (historically spring or summer). If the rescission stalls in the comment or review period, you will need compliant data ready.
In parallel, audit your state-level pay reporting obligations (California's SB 1162, Illinois, and others). Many employers already gather this data for state compliance; confirm your systems capture it correctly. As federal requirements contract, state enforcement will become the primary regulatory pressure point. Staying ahead on state mandates now eliminates last-minute scrambling if federal reporting ends.