The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law
AdvocacySupport
Employer reporting requirements
EEOC-2026-0034-0001
Comments
929
Last activity Aug 7, 2026
Deadline
--
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
-90%
-90% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Analyzed 897 of 929 comments
97%· analysis in progress
Stance breakdown
-90%
Net support
Support39Oppose844Other14Not yet analyzed32
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is -90% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Academic
13
Business
8
Individual
852
Government
2
Advocacy
18
Other
4
Not yet analyzed
32
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Jul 20Jul 27Aug 3
Support39Oppose844Other14
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
4%
95%
1%
Advocacy
28%
61%
11%
Academic
0%
92%
8%
Business
13%
88%
0%
Other
0%
100%
0%
Government
0%
100%
0%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Choose up to five.
11 organizations filed this week — visible to subscribers.
| Organization | Employer reporting requirements |
|---|---|
The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law AdvocacySupport The Louis D. |
2 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- 1 comment from the past week
One comment matches your current view and arrived in the last week. Read this week's comments with stance, commenter type, and AI summaries on the paid plan.
- Jul 24, 2026Mary WhiteOtherIndividual
The commenter expresses a general opinion on government meritocracy and equality but does not take a specific position on the proposed action. No identifying information is provided in the comment.
Read comment →