Comment from P, S EEOC-2026-0034

Docket: EEOC-2026-0034-0001 To the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Unresolved claims due to EEO-1 The EEO-1 reporting requirement has directly contributed to numerous unresolved hiring discrimination charges. Resources probably diverted to data collection and compliance instead of investigations, leaving job seekers without review and allowing statistical disparities in large or small employers to go unaddressed. This shows why the requirement must change now. The EEOC’s recognition that the EEO categories are largely arbitrary also means current employer reporting imposes unnecessary administrative costs for data that does not directly support enforcement. Removing the requirement would relieve employers of this burden while allowing EEOC to focus resources on actual investigations. I support the EEOC’s proposal to rescind the EEO-1 report and related filings. I urge the Commission to adopt a formal, binding commitment to redirect saved resources estimated at $273–275 million annually, towards investigating and litigating hiring discrimination. To ensure accountability, the final rule must require EEOC to publish an annual public report with measurable targets for increased investigations and litigation. Failure to meet targets within two years should trigger automatic Commission review and potential reversal. Any unspent savings must be redirected to enforcement. The EEOC should also investigate employers who fail to provide proper training to employees or who engage in practices that prevent long-term retention, as these actions undermine genuine merit-based opportunity and can mask discriminatory hiring patterns. Merit should not be narrowly defined by certifications alone or demographic characteristics. A job seeker who has been unable to secure a single full-time job opportunity in the last three years may indicate a potential category of discrimination or other systemic enforcement issue that requires attention and investigation. If job seeker assistance is not guaranteed through such enforceable mechanisms, then removing the EEO-1 categories would not be beneficial. There is currently no specific legislation that directly protects job seekers from discriminatory hiring practices or imposes meaningful penalties on employers. Simply eliminating the reporting requirement without strong enforcement safeguards would leave job seekers with even fewer protections. I urge the Commission to finalize this rule only after incorporating mandatory enforcement mechanisms and penalties to guarantee that all saved resources are redirected to active investigation and litigation under Title VII.