SHRM tentatively backs end of EEO-1 reports, but investor group calls them ‘vital’

The pair of public comments pushes back against EEOC’s assertion that the data collection program is overly burdensome. The pair of public comments pushes back against EEOC’s assertion — stated in documentation submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget — that EEO-1 and related demographic data reporting “imposes a significant financial and administrative burden” on U.S. employers. Specifically, SHRM noted that while it is supportive of efforts to reduce such burdens and believes that existing EEO reporting “no longer reflects today’s workforce or employer needs,” compliance with other federal and state laws still necessitates collection and retention of EEO data. Moreover, mandatory EEO reporting provides a common set of categories for employers to reference across all compliance obligations, and rescission without the implementation of an effective alternative may lead other jurisdictions to devise differing requirements, reporting periods, definitions and other criteria. “In that circumstance, rescission could ultimately increase administrative complexity even as it eliminates the federal reporting obligation,” SHRM said. The HR organization advised EEOC to consult and coordinate with state agencies on those points as it devises a new reporting framework for data collection.

SHRM also noted that employers may rely on demographic data to respond to EEOC inquiries, investigate potential disparities and defend against discrimination claims. ICCR defended EEO reporting from the investor perspective, adding that mandatory collection helps investors fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities. “Full, fair, accurate, and robust disclosure and risk management brings investment capital to companies,” ICCR executives said. “Investors rely on that disclosure to assess a company’s ability to manage its financial risk and thereby be within the pool of suitable investments. An attempt to diminish disclosure not only puts companies at greater risk, it flies in the face of free market economics.” Attorneys who previously spoke to HR Dive noted that a future reversal back to a Democratic-majority EEOC could mean the revival of EEO-1 reporting. Should that happen, employers who decide to abandon EEO data collection and retention entirely could be left with outdated processes, sources said. Generally, employers can maintain their EEO-1 reporting structure even if EEOC decides to end mandatory reporting requirements.

EEOC did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a July statement , Kalpana Kotagal, the agency’s lone Democratic commissioner, said she was concerned that EEOC’s attempt to end EEO reporting would “confuse” employers, given that Title VII’s recordkeeping requirement encompasses workforce demographic data. The plaintiff alleged that he repeatedly contacted Amazon’s HR staff to correct the error to no avail. The company unsuccessfully claimed that the agency’s information requests were overbroad and too indefinite, according to a Wisconsin federal judge. The plaintiff alleged that he repeatedly contacted Amazon’s HR staff to correct the error to no avail. The company unsuccessfully claimed that the agency’s information requests were overbroad and too indefinite, according to a Wisconsin federal judge.

⚡ Effects Interpreter

🌍 Effects for your country