Comment from Anonymous

The EEOC’s proposal to rescind these long-standing reporting requirements is a profound mistake that would undermine the very mission of the agency. The data collected through the EEO-1 and related reports are not bureaucratic paperwork; they are the essential, evidence-based tools that allow us to see and fight discrimination, just as Dr. Phyllis Wallace’s career so powerfully demonstrated. The Data Is the Foundation of Effective Enforcement The EEOC’s primary argument—that these reports are not “narrowly tailored” because they are not connected to a specific allegation of discrimination—fundamentally misunderstands how discrimination works and how it is best uncovered. The power of the EEO data is precisely its *systemic* nature. It allows the EEOC, researchers, and the public to identify broad patterns of exclusion that individual complaints, by their nature, cannot reveal. As former EEOC Chair Jenny Yang noted, these reports give the agency the facts it needs to use its investigative tools effectively, identifying patterns early on to decide what might warrant further investigation. They allow investigators to see if a single charge is part of a broader, systemic problem, or conversely, to keep information requests focused when those signals aren’t there. This isn’t just a theory. The data has a direct and proven impact on enforcement: * In a recent case against a California supermarket chain, the *impetus* for the EEOC’s investigation wasn’t a report of discrimination, but the company’s own EEO-1 disclosure, which showed a nearly homogeneous Hispanic workforce. * A $5.5 million settlement with a trucking company used the company’s EEO-1 data, compared to job applications, to demonstrate a “statistically significant disparity” disfavoring women applicants. * The EEOC’s $10.5 million settlement with Bass Pro Shops in 2017 was built on EEO-1 reports that showed “clear underutilization, and strikingly low representation” of minorities. It’s hard to imagine that case being filed without that data. Beyond Enforcement: A Critical Tool for Research and Transparency The value of this data extends far beyond the EEOC’s immediate enforcement actions. It serves as a crucial resource for researchers, academics, and the public to understand the state of workplace equality in America. A recent study published in the journal of Management Science leveraged the 2023 FOIA release of EEO-1 reports to examine the workforce diversity of over 19,000 firms. The researchers found a substantial racial gap between managers and lower-level employees that could not be explained by industry or geography, highlighting the influence of firm-level characteristics. This is precisely the kind of analysis Dr. Phyllis Wallace championed. As the first tenured female professor at MIT Sloan, she dedicated her career to using rigorous economic data to uncover patterns of exclusion. She organized government data from the EEOC and provided it to leading young economists so they could analyze where discrimination existed. The data was the bedrock of her work, and it remains the bedrock of ours. A Flawed and Dangerous Rationale The EEOC’s proposal rests on the faulty premise that collecting this data itself constitutes discrimination or promotes stereotyping. This is a deeply misguided argument that conflates the *measurement* of a problem with the problem itself. The data does not create quotas:** Critics, including the Heritage Foundation, have wrongly claimed the EEO-1 could lead to “racial quotas.” This is inaccurate. The data is used to *identify* potential discrimination, not to mandate specific outcomes. The Supreme Court’s decision supports data-driven enforcement, not its elimination:** The EEOC argues that the reports are “inconsistent” with EEO law, citing the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. However, Ames held that Title VII protects all individuals from discrimination, regardless of whether they belong to a “majority” or “minority” group. This decision strengthens, rather than weakens, the case for data collection. To enforce a law that protects everyone equally, we need data on everyone. The EEO-1 reports provide exactly that—a comprehensive, neutral dataset that can reveal discrimination against *any* group. Eliminating the data would make it harder, not easier, to ensure equal protection for all. The Burden of Ignorance The EEOC claims the cost of the reports—approximately $275 million for employers and $4 million for the agency—outweighs their value. This is a false economy. Dr. Wallace’s life and work remind us why the numbers matter. They are not just statistics; they are the evidence we need to uphold the promise of equal opportunity for all. I urge the EEOC to withdraw this short-sighted and destructive proposal.