1 Alfred G.

Rava, SBN 188318

Rava Law Firm
2 3667 Voltaire Street
3 San Diego, CA 92106
Phone: 619-238-1993
4 Fax: 619-374-7288
Email: alrava@cox.net
5
6 Attorney for Plaintiffs Rich Allison and James Hamilton

7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO – HALL OF JUSTICE

9
RICH ALLISON and JAMES HAMILTON, Case No.
10
Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
11
RELIEF AND DAMAGES FOR:
12 v.
1. Violation of Civil Code § 51 - The Unruh
13 Civil Rights Act;
FS-ISAC, INC. and DOES 1 through 100, 2. Violation of Civil Code § 51.5; and
14
Inclusive, 3. Violation of Civil Code § 51.6 - The
15 Gender Tax Repeal Act of 1995;
Defendants.
16 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
17
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
18 – George Orwell, Animal Farm
19
Plaintiffs Rich Allison and James Hamilton allege the following:
20
NATURE AND BASIS OF CLAIMS
21 1. Imagine the uproar, the protests, and the calls for a boycott by feminists and other equal rights
22 activists – and rightfully so – if Defendant FS-ISAC, Inc., a business establishment that shares physical
23 and cyber security threats with its member businesses, had the temerity to provide a scholarship to
24 only male students interested in a career in cybersecurity. To top it off, imagine the resulting kerfuffle
25 if FS-ISAC had the nerve to include the word “diversity” in the title of its hypothetical no-women-
26 allowed scholarship for which half of the population was not eligible, as in “FS-ISAC Building
27 Cybersecurity Diversity Scholarship.” Feminists and equal rights activists might take to the streets
28 wearing pink hats, carrying torches and pitchforks if FS-ISAC ever did this.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 2. Yet, as seen in Exhibits 1 of this Complaint, FS-ISAC had no problem – zero, zip, nada – with
2 offering a Building Cybersecurity Diversity Scholarship (“Diversity Scholarship”) to only females,
3 purportedly “To support the education of cybersecurity students and help build a more diverse
4 workforce,” but to only “a female interested in cybersecurity.” In other words: Males Need Not Apply.
5 The female recipient of FS-ISAC’s no-men-allowed Diversity Scholarship will receive the following:
6 • A $5,000 financial scholarship; and
7 • An all-expenses paid trip to the FS-ISAC Fall Summit in Chicago, Illinois, November 11-
8 14, 2018, entitled “Strength In Sharing.”
9 3. As seen in Exhibit 1, among the “Minimum Requirements” for FS-ISAC’s Diversity
10 Scholarship were the following:
11 • Must be a female interested in a career in cybersecurity.
12 • Minimum age requirement - Must be 21 years old by 11 November 2018.
13 • Available to attend the entire FS-ISAC Fall Summit, 11-14 November 2018.
14 • Enrolled in an educational program related to technology or cybersecurity.
15 • FS-ISAC will not sponsor any person for immigration benefit in connection with this
16 award. You must be authorized to work in the U.S.
17 4. According to the application for the Diversity Scholarship, the application had to be
18 electronically submitted by 5:00 p.m. EST on April 15, 2018.
19 5. Regarding the question of whether Plaintiffs met the above minimum requirements for the
20 Diversity Scholarship, both Rich Allison and James Hamilton were and are interested in a career in
21 cybersecurity. On November 11, 2018, both Plaintiffs will be over the age of 21. Both men were and
22 remain available to attend the entire FS-ISAC Fall Summit, starting on November 11, 2018 through
23 November 14, 2018. Both Plaintiffs are enrolled in an educational program related to technology or
24 cybersecurity. And both men are authorized to work in the U.S. The only minimum requirement
25 Plaintiffs could not meet is they both had the misfortune – at least for this Diversity Scholarship – of
26 being born male. Unfortunately, and unlawfully, Plaintiffs’ sex made them unfit for FS-ISAC’s
27 Diversity Scholarship, but it did not make them unfit to proudly serve in our nation’s military.
28

Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 6. Because both Plaintiffs have the Diversity Scholarship-disqualifying immutable characteristic
2 of being male, they were ineligible for the benefits offered to only their female counterparts. The
3 female-only benefits include the $5,000 scholarship, and the all-expenses paid to FS-ISAC’s Fall
4 Summit where, as touted in Exhibit 1, the female Diversity Scholarship recipient “will be provided
5 with an industry mentor from a leading financial or security organization to learn about the latest in
6 cybersecurity issues. The Summit offers the unique opportunity for students to network with top
7 industry professionals, learn about current issues and challenges, and jump start their careers.”
8 7. Defendant FS-ISAC’s no-men-allowed Diversity Scholarship is seemingly designed to prepare
9 only a female recipient for a career in a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) field via its
10 (1) $5,000 scholarship, (2) having a STEM industry mentor during the Fall Summing, and (3) having
11 “the unique opportunity for students to network with top industry professionals, learn about current
12 issues and challenges, and jump start their careers” at the Fall Summit. It is especially troubling that
13 FS-ISAC prohibited Plaintiffs and other male students from applying for the Diversity Scholarship
14 given that as shown in Exhibit 2 to this Complaint, the percentage distribution of students enrolled in
15 high school STEM courses is almost the same for female and male students, with a higher percentage
16 of female students enrolled in some STEM courses, and a higher percentage of male students enrolled
17 in other STEM courses (Ex. 2, U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, New Release for
18 2018, 2015-16 Civil Rights Data Collection STEM Course Taking, Page 6).
19 8. Males are also adversely affected by the Education Gap and are disproportionately
20 disadvantaged in the workplace compared to females, for example:
21 • Regarding the Education Gap for men, according to the Council of Graduate Schools 2016
report on U.S. graduate school enrollment and degrees, women earned the majority of doctoral
22 degrees in 2016 for the 8th straight year and outnumbered men in graduate school 135 to 100.
23 In 2016, women received 52.1% of doctoral degrees compared to 47.9% awarded to men, and
women received 57.4% of master’s degrees to only 42.6% for men. In 2015, women received
24 56.44% of bachelor’s degrees, compared to only 43.56% for men. See National Center for
Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2016. Males are enrolling in and graduating
25 from higher education at alarmingly low rates and have become the minority at colleges.
26
• Males are many times more likely to be victims of workplace fatalities and injuries than are
27 females, e.g., in 2015, about 93% of workplace fatalities were males, when 4,492 males were
28 killed on the job, compared to 344 females who suffered fatal workplace injuries. See United
States Department of Labor, 2015 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 • Males make much longer commutes to work than females to support their families, with the
difference in average commute times in the U.S. by gender – 79 minutes for males vs. 61
2
minutes for females – representing a 23% “gender commute time gap” in favor of women. See
3 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2016 Family Database, Time Spent
4 Travelling To And From Work.

5
• Males work longer hours to support their families. Among full-time employees, males worked
6 8.2 hours/day compared to females working 7.8 hours/day, and if you compare employed males
and females, employed males work an average of 42 minutes more per day than employed
7
females, which adds up to an extra 3.5 hours a week or an additional 14 hours a month. See
8 United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015 American Time Use Survey.
9
• Males commit suicide at nearly four times the rate of females, and represent 78% of all suicides
10 in the United States. See United States Department of Health & Human Services, Center for
11 Disease Control, 2015, Suicide: Facts At A Glance.

12
9. Despite the many State of California anti-discrimination statutes, California Supreme Court
13
opinions, California Attorney General and Department of Fair Employment and Housing actions, and
14
California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and Department of Education rules and
15
regulations that prohibit California businesses and schools from treating patrons and students
16
unequally based on their sex, FS-ISAC offered a no-men-allowed scholarship, incongruously defined
17
as a “Diversity Scholarship,” which treated men and women unequally based solely on their sex. A
18
women-only scholarship such as FS-ISAC’s Diversity Scholarship assures that masculum collegium
19
discipulus will become an even more rare species on college campuses.
20
10. As a result of FS-ISAC’s unequal treatment of Plaintiffs and other male STEM students
21
based solely on their sex, FS-ISAC denied Plaintiffs and other male STEM students the equal
22
accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services they are entitled to under California's
23
Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified as Civil Code section 51. FS-ISAC’s no-men-allowed Diversity
24
Scholarship violated California’s strong public policy to eradicate sex discrimination, reflected in the
25 many California statutes that prohibit businesses and schools from discriminating against people based
26 on their sex such as, California Civil Code sections 51, 51.5, and 51.6 (Gender Tax Repeal Act of
27 1995), California Education Code sections 200, 201, and 220, and Government Code section 11135.
28

Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 11. For any business operating in the progressive state of California in the year 2018, during the
2 height of the #MeToo movement advocating diversity and condemning sex discrimination, to treat
3 male and female students unequally based solely on the students’ sex, is as repugnant and unlawful as
4 if a business had the nerve to offer a “Diversity Scholarship” with one of the minimum requirements
5 being that an applicant “Must be a Caucasian interested in a career in cybersecurity” or that an
6 applicant “Must be a heterosexual interested in a career in cybersecurity” Simply put, it is against
7 many California anti-discrimination laws, and many federal and other states’ laws, for a business to
8 treat people unequally based on their sex or other personal characteristics, such as race or sexual
9 orientation, which should surprise no one.
10 12. The seminal California Supreme Court case on sex-based business practices or services is
11 Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, which held that Ladies’ Day and Ladies’ Night events
12 that treated patrons unequally based on their sex by charging male patrons more than female patrons
13 for the same thing—as little fifteen cents more—violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Koire found
14 “Public policy in California strongly supports eradication of discrimination based on sex. The Unruh
15 Act expressly prohibits sex discrimination by business enterprises.” Id. at 37.
16 13. Koire was upheld by the California Supreme Court in its second sex-based business practices
17 or services case, which also concerned females ostensibly being treated better than males, Angelucci
18 v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th 160. Angelucci unanimously ruled that men who were
19 charged more than women to enter a supper club on a Ladies’ Night did not have to confront the
20 discriminating business and affirmatively assert the men’s right to equal treatment to the offending
21 business in order to have standing for a Civil Code section 51, 51.5, or 51.6 claim.
22 14. FS-ISAC’s no-men-allowed Diversity Scholarship repudiated hundreds of years of women’s
23 struggles to be viewed as being equal to men. Not only has the California Supreme Court unanimously
24 expressed its disapproval of how businesses’ sex-based practices, policies, or programs harm women,
25 the United States Supreme Court has similarly weighed in as well about "romantic paternalism"

26 directed at women. In Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court

27 ruled the military must provide its female members with the same housing and medical benefits as it

28 provides its male members. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote that the military’s unequal treatment

Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 of men and women is yet another example of one of those types of traditional sex discrimination that
2 ostensibly appears to benefit women, but is “rationalized by an attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’
3 which, in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage.”
4 15. The Judicial Council of California's jury instructions for violations of Civil Code sections 51,
5 51.5, and 51.6 (all alleged here), i.e., CACI 3060, 3061, and 3062, respectively, reflect the Judicial
6 Council’s recognition of the California Supreme Court ruling in Koire that sex-based pricing
7 promotions are “per se injurious.” The Directions For Use for CACI 3060, 3061, and 3062 recognize
8 that a plaintiff asking for only the statutory damages provided by Civil Code section 52 for violations
9 of section 51, 51.5, and 51.6, respectively, does not have to prove he or she was harmed or that
10 defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm, because harm is presumed.
11 16. FS-ISAC’s no-men-allowed Diversity Scholarship has caused discontent, animosity, harm,
12 resentment, or envy among the sexes, has constituted arbitrary, unreasonable, and/or invidious
13 discrimination, and has contravened California’s historical effort to eradicate sex discrimination.
14 17. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), the State agency
15 charged with preventing unlawful discrimination in places of public accommodation, has published a
16 brochure specifically addressing the unlawfulness of businesses’ sex-based practices, policies, or
17 programs. This DFEH brochure is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and can also be found at
18 http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/DFEH/Publications/PublicationDocs/UnruhActBrochure.pdf.
19 18. The California Department of Justice and the California Bureau of Gambling Control has
20 similarly expressed its condemnation of sex-based practices, policies, or programs, specifically their
21 disapproval of the proliferation of no-men-allowed poker tournaments hosted by California’s licensed
22 card rooms. The California Attorney General and the Bureau of Gambling Control issued a Gambling
23 Establishment Advisory, attached hereto as Exhibit 4, that warned card rooms that ladies-only poker
24 tournaments violated the Unruh Act. The Attorney General warned that it may be unlawful under the
25 Unruh Act to simply advertise tournaments as “ladies only” even if men were in fact admitted. This

26 Advisory can also be found at http://ag.ca.gov/gambling/pdfs/NUM8LOT.pdf.

27 19. By this action, Plaintiffs seek redress for FS-ISAC’s Diversity Scholarship that treats men and

28 women unequally based solely on their sex.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 PARTIES
2 20. Plaintiff Rich Allison is a man over the age of 21, a U.S. citizen, and a California resident. He
3 is a retired U.S. Marine captain and a student in an educational program related to technology or
4 cybersecurity. Before the April 15, 2018, deadline for applying for the Diversity Scholarship, Mr.
5 Allison read the minimum requirements for the Diversity Scholarship and saw he was not eligible for
6 it because he was not and is not a female. Therefore, Mr. Allison did not submit an application because
7 FS-ISAC prohibited him from applying solely because of his sex. Otherwise, he would have done so.
8 21. Plaintiff James Hamilton is a man over the age of 21, a U.S. citizen, and a California resident.
9 He is a retired U.S. Army sergeant and a student in an educational program related to technology or
10 cybersecurity. Before the April 15, 2018, deadline for applying for the Diversity Scholarship, Mr.
11 Hamilton read the minimum requirements for the Diversity Scholarship and saw he was not eligible
12 because he was not and is not a female. Therefore, Mr. Hamilton did not submit an application because
13 FS-ISAC prohibited him from applying solely because of his sex. Otherwise, he would have done so.
14 22. On information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Defendant FS-ISAC, Inc. is a business
15 establishment, a Delaware corporation, not registered with the California Secretary of State, having
16 done and doing business in San Diego, California. FS-ISAC held its 2015 FS-ISAC Fall Summit
17 entitled “Intelligence Into Action San Diego, California” at the Hotel del Coronado from October 25-
18 28, 2015. Also, on information and belief, the Disaster Recovery Journal Fall World 2013 event, held
19 at the Hilton San Diego Bayfront, featured an FS-ISAC track with FS-ISAC members as presenters.
20 23. The true names and capacities of Does 1 through 100 are unknown to Plaintiffs. When their
21 true names and capacities are learned, Plaintiffs will amend this complaint accordingly. Plaintiffs are
22 informed and believe, and on that basis allege, each fictitiously named defendant is responsible in
23 some way for the occurrences herein alleged, and those defendants proximately caused plaintiff and
24 the other male consumers’ damages. Each reference in this complaint to “defendant,” “defendants,”
25 or a specifically named defendant refers to all defendants sued under fictitious names.

26 24. Unless otherwise alleged, whenever reference is made to any act of “defendant,” “defendants,”

27 or to a specific defendant, like “FS-ISAC, Inc.” “Defendant FS-ISAC” or “FS-ISAC,” such allegation

28 shall mean each defendant acted individually and with the other defendant named in the complaint.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 25. Unless otherwise alleged, whenever reference is made in this complaint to any act or omission
2 of any corporate or business defendant, such allegation shall mean that such corporation or other
3 business defendant committed or omitted to act as in this complaint through its officers, members,
4 directors, stockholders, employees, agents, and/or representatives while they were acting within the
5 actual or apparent scope of their authority.
6 26. At all relevant times alleged herein, each defendant has been each the agent, alter-ego,
7 representative, partner, joint venturer, employee, or assistant of the other defendants and has acted
8 within the course and scope of said agency, alter-ego, representation, partnership, or joint venture with
9 the knowledge, notification, authorization, and consent of each of the other defendants.
10 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11 27. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Article VI, section
12 10 of the California Constitution because this action is a cause not given by statute to other trial courts,
13 and seeks, among other relief, a permanent injunction. Subject matter jurisdiction is further premised
14 on, inter alia, California Civil Code sections 51, 51.5, and 51.6.
15 28. This court has personal jurisdiction over defendants in this action because all
16 defendants do sufficient business in California and have sufficient minimum contacts in California to
17
render the exercise of personal jurisdiction over them by California courts consistent with traditional
18
notions of fair play and substantial justice.
19
29. Venue is proper in this court because the alleged unequal treatment occurred in San
20
Diego where Plaintiffs read FS-ISAC’s internet-published materials about its Diversity Scholarship
21
on their electronic devices and saw that they were not eligible because of their sex.
22
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
23
Violation of The Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code Section 51
24
30. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
25
preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.
26
31. By prohibiting Plaintiffs and other males from applying for and receiving the Diversity
27
Scholarship based solely on their sex, FS-ISAC intentionally denied equal accommodations,
28

Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 advantages, facilities, privileges, or services to Plaintiffs based on their sex, which is prohibited by the
2 Unruh Civil Rights Act, codified as Civil Code section 51.
3 32. A substantial motivating reason for FS-ISAC’s conduct was the Plaintiffs’ sex.
4 33. FS-ISAC’s conduct harmed Plaintiffs.
5 34. FS-ISAC’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs.
6
35. FS-ISAC unequal treatment of Plaintiffs subjects FS-ISAC to injunctive relief.
7
8
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
9
Violation of Civil Code Section 51.5
10 36. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
11 preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.
12 37. By prohibiting Plaintiffs and other males from applying for and receiving the Diversity
13
Scholarship based solely on their sex, FS-ISAC discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their sex,
14
which is prohibited by Civil Code section 51.5.
15
38. A substantial motivating reason for FS-ISAC’s conduct was Plaintiffs’ sex.
16
39. FS-ISAC’s conduct harmed Plaintiffs.
17
40. FS-ISAC’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs.
18
41. FS-ISAC’s unequal treatment of customers subjects Defendants to injunctive relief.
19
20
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
21
22 Violation Of The Gender Tax Repeal Act Of 1995, Civil Code Section 51.6
42. Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action the allegations contained in each and every
23
preceding paragraph of this Complaint as if they were set out at length herein.
24
43. By denying Plaintiffs and other males an all-expenses paid trip to the FS-ISAC Fall
25
Summit in Chicago in November of 2018, FS-ISAC discriminated, with respect to the price charged
26
for services of similar or like kind, against Plaintiffs because of their gender, which is prohibited by
27
Civil Code section 51.6.
28

Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

 1 44. By denying Plaintiffs and other males an all-expenses paid trip to the FS-ISAC Fall
2 Summit in Chicago in November of 2018, while providing only women with an opportunity to receive
3 an all-expenses paid trip to FS-ISAC’s Fall Summit, FS-ISAC is requiring Plaintiffs and other male
4 students interested in a career in cybersecurity to pay a Man Tax to attend this event.
5 45. A substantial motivating reason for FS-ISAC’s conduct was Plaintiffs’ sex
6
46. FS-ISAC’s conduct harmed Plaintiffs.
7
47. FS-ISAC’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs.
8
48. FS-ISAC’s unequal treatment of customers subjects Defendants to injunctive relief.
9
10
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
11
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
12
1. For an order providing equitable and injunctive relief permanently enjoining FS-ISAC
13
from engaging in unequal treatment of students enrolled in an educational program related to
14
technology or cybersecurity based solely on the students’ sex in violation of Civil Code sections 51,
15
51.5, and 51.6.
16
2. For an order requiring FS-ISAC, its employees, its member businesses, and its member
17
businesses’ employees to undergo sensitivity, diversity, and sex discrimination training.
18
3. For statutory damages pursuant to Civil Code section 52;
19
4. For costs incurred herein, including attorneys’ fees to the extent allowable by statute,
20
including but not limited to Civil Code sections 52 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5; and
21
5. For such other and further legal and equitable relief as this court may deem proper.
22
23
24 Dated: June 12, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

25 By: /s/ Alfred G. Rava

Alfred G. Rava
26 Rava Law Firm
27
28

10

Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages

EXHIBIT 1
 FINANCIALI Shanng
Information
and
SER\'ICES Analysis Center

Program Description
The financial sector is on the front lines of emerging cybersecurity threats. To support the education of
cybersecurity students and help build a more diverse workforce. Financial Services – Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (FS-ISAC) is offering a Building Cybersecurity Diversity (BCD) Scholarship open to female
students who are enrolled in an educational or training program and interested in a career in cybersecurity.

Scholarship recipients will receive a $5,000 USD financial award (to be paid to the school for educational
expenses) and an all-expenses paid trip to the FS-ISAC Fall Summit During the Summit, students will be
provided with an industry mentor from a leading financial or security organization to learn about the latest in
cybersecurity issues. The Summit offers the unique opportunity for students to network with top industry
professionals, learn about current issues and challenges, and jump start their careers.

Minimum Requirements:
1.Must be a female interested in a career in cybersecurity.
2.Minimum age requirement - Must be 21 years old by 11November 2018
3.Available to attend the entire FS- SAC Fall Summit11-14 November 2018. For details,
see https:/lwww.fsisac-summitcom/2018-Faii-Summit-Overview
4.Enrolled in an educational program related to technology or cybersecurity
5.FS-ISAC will not sponsor any person for an immigration benefit in connection with this award. You must
be authorized to work in the US. Please contact scholarship@fsisac.com with any questions.
6.Sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement to protect any confidential information shared at the FS-ISAC Fall
Summit.

By accepting the scholarship, students agree to:

1.Provide permission for FS-ISAC to contact their educational program to confirm enrollment
2.Work with faculty to complete any missed coursework. FS-ISAC will provide a letter about the BCD
Scholarship and confirming attendance to assist with those conversations.
3.Work with an industry mentor (provided by one of our sponsors) prior to and during the Summit to learn
about the security issues and challenges within the financial industry, discuss career options and choices,
and network with Summit attendees.
4.Coordinate announcements of the BCD Scholarship program on social media or news outlets w ith the FS-
ISAC Communications team. Students may also be asked to serve as an ambassador for the Scholarship
program in the future.
5.Present a summary of your experience to FS-ISAC after the Summit
6.Conduct yourself in a professional manner and in accordance with your school Code of Conduct as an
ambassador of your school. Recip ients who violate professional or legal ethics may be asked to leave
the Summ it and will forfeit their scholarship.

Travel
The scholarship covers all expenses associated with attending the FS-ISAC Summit, including travel meals,
registration, and hotel.
1.FS-ISAC will arrange for hotel, flight (if necessary), registration fees and Summit meals. Students must
coordinate with FS-ISAC staff to arrange travel and pre-summit activities. Due to travel requirements, you are
asked to arrive the day before the Summit and should plan to attend for the duration of the Summit.
2.FS-ISAC will reimburse students for additional expenses incurred during travel including mileage, taxis
and meals. To be reimbursed, the recipient must attend the Summit and submit receipts to FS-ISAC w ithin 10
business days of the event.

Continue to Next Page for the Application

Next>>

Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center

Sharing Critical, Specific, Meaningful, Accurate, Reliable and Timely Information TLP White
EXHIBIT 2
 NNE EWW R RE EL LE EA AS SE E F FOOR R 2 20 01 18 8

2015–16 CIVIL RIGHTS DATA COLLECTION

U.S. Department of Education

STEM COURSE
Office for Civil Rights

TAKING
DATA HIGHLIGHTS ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS
COURSE TAKING IN OUR NATION’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS

What's the 2015–16 Civil Rights Data Collection?

The 2015–16 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) is a survey of all public schools and school districts in the United States. The CRDC measures
student access to courses, programs, staff, and resources that impact education equity and opportunity for students. The CRDC has long provided
critical information used by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in its enforcement and monitoring activities.
In addition, the CRDC is a valuable resource for other federal agencies, policymakers, researchers, educators, school officials, parents, students,
and other members of the public who seek data on student equity and opportunity. To further explore the CRDC data through the use of data
tools, please visit the CRDC Reporting Website at ocrdata.ed.gov. To download the CRDC data, visit crdc.ed.gov.

Who’s in the 2015–16 CRDC?

Number of school districts: 17,337
WHAT’S INSIDE
Number of schools: 96,360
Total number of students: 50.6 Million Middle School Mathematics Courses........... 3
Nationwide Student High School Mathematics Courses............... 5
Demographics: Hispanic or High School Science Courses.......................... 5
Latino of any race
Race/Ethnicity:1 26% Data Highlights and CRDC Endnotes.......... 11
Black or African
Asian 5% American 15% More About the CRDC...................................... 12
American Indian or
Alaska Native 1% Data Collected for the First Time
Two or more races 3% Algebra I classes in grades 7-8 and 9-12.... 2
White 49%
Native Hawaiian Students enrolled in Algebra I
or Other Pacific Islander 0.4%
in grades 7-8....................................................... 2
Boys: 51% Girls: 49% Geometry classes in grades 9-12.................. 5
English Learners: 10% Students enrolled in Geometry
Students with Disabilities: 14% in grades 9-12..................................................... 6
• Students with disabilities served under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA): 12%
• Students with disabilities served only under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, as amended: 2%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2015–16.

U.S. Department of Education | Office for Civil Rights | April 2018 1

 NEW RELEASE FOR 2018

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND

MATHEMATICS COURSE TAKING†
The CRDC collects information regarding science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses that are available to students.
The data include course enrollment and course availability for some middle school and high school courses.2 Middle school courses include
Algebra I and Geometry. High school courses include Algebra I and Geometry, as well as Algebra II, advanced mathematics,3 Calculus,
Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. The CRDC also collects student passing data on Algebra I in middle school and high school.

Several of these data elements were new for the 2015–16 CRDC, including:
• Number of Algebra I classes in Grades 7-8
• Number of Algebra I classes in Grades 9-12
• Number of students enrolled in Algebra I in Grade 7
• Number of students enrolled in Algebra I in Grade 8*
• Number of students who passed Algebra I in Grade 7
• Number of students who passed Algebra I in Grade 8*
• Number of students enrolled in Geometry in Grade 8
• Number of Geometry classes in Grades 9-12
• Number of students enrolled in Geometry in Grades 9-12*
*Data are disaggregated by race,sex, disability (IDEA),4 and English learners.5

Foundation of STEM Success

Algebra is often referred to as a “gatekeeper course” because it is generally
considered a prerequisite for higher-level mathematics courses. Early FIGURE 1: Percentage distribution of students
passage of this foundational mathematics course helps prepare students for enrolled in Algebra I, by grade span
subsequent STEM coursework.

For the 2015–16 school year, the CRDC collected data indicating that nearly
30,000 public schools in the United States served students who were enrolled
in either Grade 7 or Grade 8. Of the schools with Grade 7 students enrolled, Grade 9-10 Grade 11-12
approximately 21 percent offered Algebra I classes. Of the schools with Grade 8 69% 6%
students enrolled, approximately 58 percent offered Algebra I.

OVERALL STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN ALGEBRA I Grade 7-8

Across all grades, approximately 4.4 million students were enrolled in 25%
Algebra I during the 2015–16 school year. Figure 1 displays the percentage
distribution of all students enrolled in Algebra I, by grade span. The data show
that 69 percent of students who were enrolled in Algebra I were in Grades 9 or
10. Six percent of students who were enrolled in Algebra I were in Grades 11 or SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil
Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2015–16.
12, and about 25 percent were in Grades 7 or 8.

2 2015–16 Civil Rights Data Collection | STEM COURSE TAKING

 NEW RELEASE FOR 2018

FIGURE 2: Percentage distribution of Grade 8 students enrolled in

and passing Algebra I, by race

100% 1% 1% 0.4%

18% 17%
25%
80% 8%
8%
5% 9%
11%
0.1%
60% 17% 0.4%
0.4%

40% 64%
58%
49%

20%

3% 3% 2%
0
Grade 8 Enrollment 6
Algebra I Enrollment Algebra I Passing

■ American Indian or Alaska Native ■ Asian ■ Native Hawaiian or ■ Two or more races
■ Hispanic or Latino of any race ■ Black or African American Other Pacific Islander
■ White
NOTE: Data may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2015–16.

GRADE 8 ALGEBRA I ENROLLMENT AND PASSING RATES BY RACE

Figure 2 presents the percentage distribution of Grade 8 students enrolled in and passing Algebra I, by race. White students constituted
49 percent of the 14.6 million students in schools that offered Algebra I in Grade 8, and 58 percent of the students enrolled in Algebra I in
Grade 8. Asian students comprised 5 percent of the students enrolled in schools that offered Algebra I in Grade 8, and 8 percent of those
students enrolled in Algebra I in Grade 8.

Black students constituted 17 percent of the students in schools that offered Algebra I in Grade 8, and 11 percent of the students enrolled in
Algebra I in Grade 8. Latino students comprised 25 percent of the students in schools that offered Algebra I in Grade 8, and 18 percent of the
students enrolled in Algebra I in Grade 8.

American Indian or Alaska Native students (1 percent), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students (0.4 percent), and students of two or
more races (3 percent) were enrolled in Algebra I in Grade 8 at a rate comparable to their student enrollment at schools that offered Algebra I
in Grade 8.

Passing Algebra I indicates a student successfully completed the course and received full credit. Of the total population of students who
passed Algebra I in Grade 8, 64 percent were white, 17 percent were Latino, 9 percent were black, and 8 percent were Asian.7 American Indian
or Alaska Native students accounted for 0.4 percent of students who passed Algebra I in Grade 8. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
students accounted for 0.1 percent of students who passed Algebra I in Grade 8. Students of two or more races accounted for 2 percent of
students who passed Algebra I in Grade 8.

U.S. Department of Education | Office for Civil Rights | ocrdata.ed.gov 3

 NEW RELEASE FOR 2018

FIGURE 3: Passing rates for students enrolled in Grade 8 Algebra I,

by race

100%

85%
80% 74%
72%
65%
60%

43%
40%
30%
24%
20%

0
American Indian Hispanic or Asian Black or Native Hawaiian White Two or more races
or Alaska Native Latino of any race African American or Other
Pacific Islander

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2015–16.

Figure 3 shows the passing rates for students enrolled in Grade 8 Algebra I, by race. Of white students and Asian students who were enrolled
in Algebra I in Grade 8, 85 percent of white students and 74 percent of Asian students passed the course. Of Latino students and black
students enrolled in Algebra I in Grade 8, 72 percent of Latino students and 65 percent of black students passed the course.

These groups had passing rates below 50 percent: students of two or more races (43 percent), American Indian or Alaska Native students
(30 percent), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students (24 percent).

4 2015–16 Civil Rights Data Collection | STEM COURSE TAKING

 NEW RELEASE FOR 2018

High School Mathematics and Science Courses

The CRDC data show that for the 2015–16 school year, there were approximately 16.7 million students enrolled in 26,300 public high schools.
The CRDC collects data on several mathematics and science preparatory courses typically offered in high schools. The mathematics courses
include Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, advanced mathematics, and Calculus. The science courses include Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. The
data indicate that most – but not all – of the nation’s public high schools offered these mathematics and science preparatory courses during the
2015–16 school year.

FIGURE 4: Percentage of high schools offering mathematics

and science courses

100%

86% 86% 84% 86%

83% 85%
80%
80% 74% 73%

65% 68%
60%
60% 55%
51%
50%

40% 38%

20%

0
Algebra I Geometry Algebra II Advanced Calculus Biology Chemistry Physics
Mathematics

■ All high schools

■ High schools with high black and Latino student enrollment

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2015–16.

STEM COURSE AVAILABILITY IN HIGH SCHOOLS

Figure 4 displays the percentage of high schools offering mathematics and science courses. The data show that 86 percent of high schools
offered Algebra I, 84 percent offered Geometry, and 80 percent offered Algebra II. Advanced mathematics and Calculus were offered at fewer
schools: 65 percent and 50 percent, respectively. For science courses, 86 percent of the nation’s high schools offered Biology and 73 percent
offered Chemistry. However, just 60 percent of high schools offered Physics courses.

Figure 4 further indicates the approximately 5,000 high schools with high black and Latino enrollment (i.e. schools with more than
75 percent black and Latino student enrollment) offered mathematics and science courses at a lower rate than the overall population of
all high schools.8 This difference is greatest with respect to advanced mathematics, Calculus, and Physics.

U.S. Department of Education | Office for Civil Rights | ocrdata.ed.gov 5

 NEW RELEASE FOR 2018

FIGURE 5: Number of students enrolled in high FIGURE 6: Percentage distribution of students enrolled in
school mathematics and science courses high school mathematics and science courses, by sex

Student Male Female

Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment

High School Enrollment 16,700,000 High School Enrollment 51% 49%

Algebra I 3,270,000 Algebra I 53% 47%

Geometry 3,393,000 Geometry 51% 49%

Algebra II 2,946,000 Algebra II 49% 51%

Advanced Mathematics 2,205,000 Advanced Mathematics 48% 52%

Calculus 692,600 Calculus 50% 50%

Biology 4,469,000 Biology 50% 50%

Chemistry 2,915,000 Chemistry 48% 52%

Physics 1,597,000 Physics 54% 46%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights,
Civil Rights Data Collection, 2015–16. Civil Rights Data Collection, 2015–16.

OVERALL STUDENT ENROLLMENT IN HIGH SCHOOL STEM COURSES

Figure 5 shows the number of students enrolled in high school mathematics and science courses. During the 2015–16 school year, there
were over 16.7 million students enrolled in high schools. Approximately 12.5 million of those students – nearly 75 percent of the total high
school student population – were enrolled in Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, advanced mathematics, and/or Calculus. Nearly 9.0 million of
the 16.7 million total student population – or about 54 percent of the total high school population – were enrolled in Biology, Chemistry,
and/or Physics.

HIGH SCHOOL STEM ENROLLMENT BY SEX

Enrollment in mathematics and sciences courses approached parity for male and female students. Figure 6 presents the percentage
distribution of students enrolled in high school mathematics and science courses, by sex. Female students comprised 49 percent of the
high school student enrollment. Enrollment rates of female students in Algebra II (51 percent), advanced mathematics (52 percent),
Calculus (50 percent), Biology (50 percent), and Chemistry (52 percent) exceeded their high school student enrollment rate. The enrollment
rate of female students in Geometry (49 percent) matched their high school enrollment rate. The enrollment rates of female students in
Algebra I (47 percent) and Physics (46 percent) were within 2 percentage points and 3 percentage points, respectively, of their overall
high school enrollment rate.

Male students represented 51 percent of the overall high school student enrollment. Their enrollment rates in every course, except advanced
mathematics and Chemistry, were within 2 percentage points of their overall student enrollment rate, and for advanced mathematics
and Chemistry, the enrollment rates were within 3 percentage points of their overall student enrollment rate. Enrollment rates of male
students in Algebra I (53 percent) and Physics (54 percent) exceeded their overall student enrollment rate by 2 percentage points and
3 percentage points, respectively.

6 2015–16 Civil Rights Data Collection | STEM COURSE TAKING

 NEW RELEASE FOR 2018

FIGURE 7: Percentage distribution of students enrolled in high school mathematics

and science courses, by race

100% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

19% 16%
24% 25% 23% 24% 23% 25%
28%
80% 35%
8% 14%
5% 6% 6% 7%
5% 8%
3%
13% 8%
3% 17% 15% 15% 14% 12%
60% 16% 18% 0.4%
0.4%
0.4% 0.4% 0.4%
0.4% 19% 0.5% 0.4%
0.5%

40% 1%
52% 56% 58%
49% 52% 51%
51% 45% 50%
37%
20%

3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
0
High School Algebra I Algebra I Geometry Algebra II Advanced Calculus Biology Chemistry Physics
Enrollment Grade 9-10 Grade 11-12 Mathematics

■ American Indian or Alaska Native ■ Asian ■ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ■ Two or more races
■ Hispanic or Latino of any race ■ Black or African American ■ White

NOTE: Data may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2015–16.

HIGH SCHOOL STEM ENROLLMENT BY RACE

Figure 7 displays the percentage distributions of students enrolled in high school mathematics and science courses, by race. Of the
Grade 9 and Grade 10 students enrolled in Algebra l, 18 percent were black and 28 percent were Latino, compared to 16 percent and
24 percent of high school enrollment, respectively.

White students, who were 51 percent of high school enrollment, were 45 percent of those enrolled in Algebra l in Grades 9 and 10. Asian
students were 5 percent of all high school students enrolled and 3 percent of those enrolled in Algebra l in Grades 9 and 10. Of the students
enrolled in Algebra I in Grades 11 and 12, 37 percent were white, 35 percent were Latino, 19 percent were black, and 3 percent were Asian.
Most races were enrolled in Geometry at rates comparable with their high school student enrollment.

Black students constituted 16 percent of high school enrollment and 13 percent of students enrolled in advanced mathematics, 8 percent of
students enrolled in Calculus, and 12 percent of students enrolled in Physics. Black students accounted for 17 percent of students enrolled in
Geometry, 15 percent of those enrolled in Algebra II and Biology, and 14 percent of those enrolled in Chemistry.

Latino students constituted 24 percent of high school enrollment and represented 23 percent of students enrolled in Algebra II and Chemistry,
19 percent of students enrolled in advanced mathematics, and 16 percent of students enrolled in Calculus. Latino students represented
25 percent of students enrolled in Geometry and in Physics, and 24 percent of students enrolled in Biology.

U.S. Department of Education | Office for Civil Rights | ocrdata.ed.gov 7

 NEW RELEASE FOR 2018

FIGURE 8: Percentage distribution of high school students enrolled in

and passing Algebra I, by race and grade span

100% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%

24% 27%
28%
80% 35% 37%

5% 3%
3%
16% 17% 3%
60% 18%
2%

0.4% 0.3% 19% 18%

0.5%
0.2%
40% 1%

51% 45% 50%

37% 41%
20%

3% 3% 2% 3% 1%
0
High School Grade 9-10 Grade 9-10 Grade 11-12 Grade 11-12
Enrollment Algebra I Enrollment Algebra I Passing Algebra I Enrollment Algebra I Passing

■ American Indian or Alaska Native ■ Asian ■ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander ■ Two or more races
■ Hispanic or Latino of any race ■ Black or African American ■ White

NOTE: Data may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2015–16.

Figure 8 displays the percentage distribution of high school students enrolled in and passing Algebra I, by race and grade span. White
students were 45 percent of students who took Algebra I in Grades 9-10 and 50 percent of the students who passed. White students were also
37 percent of the students who took Algebra I in Grades 11-12 and 41 percent of the students who passed.

Latino students constituted 28 percent of students enrolled in Grade 9-10 Algebra I and 35 percent of students enrolled in Grade 11-12
Algebra I. Latino students were 27 percent and 37 percent of students who passed Algebra I in Grades 9-10 and Grades 11-12, respectively.

Black students represented 18 percent of students studying Algebra I in Grades 9-10 and 17 percent of the students who passed the course.
Black students also constituted 19 percent of students enrolled in Grade 11-12 Algebra I and 18 percent of the students who passed.

Students of two or more races constituted 3 percent of students enrolled in Grade 9-10 Algebra I and Grade 11-12 Algebra I. Students of two or
more races were also 2 percent and 1 percent of students who passed Algebra I in Grades 9-10 and Grades 11-12, respectively.

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students accounted for 0.5 percent of students studying Algebra I in Grades 9-10 and 0.3 percent
of the students who passed the course. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander students also constituted 1 percent of students enrolled in
Grade 11-12 Algebra I and 0.2 percent of the students who passed.

Asian and American Indian or Alaska Native students both passed Grade 9-10 Algebra I at a rate comparable to their respective Algebra I
enrollment (3 percent and 1 percent, respectively). In Grade 11-12 Algebra I, Asian students were 3 percent of enrollment and 2 percent of
those who passed, while American Indian or Alaska Native students were 2 percent of students enrolled and 1 percent of students who passed.

8 2015–16 Civil Rights Data Collection | STEM COURSE TAKING

 NEW RELEASE FOR 2018

FIGURE 9: Percentage distribution of students enrolled in high

school mathematics and science courses, by English learners

English Learners Non-English Learners

Enrollment Enrollment

High School Enrollment 6% 94%

Algebra I 9% 91%

Geometry 6% 94%

Algebra II 4% 96%

Advanced Mathematics 2% 98%

Calculus 2% 98%

Biology 6% 94%

Chemistry 4% 96%

Physics 4% 96%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2015–16.

HIGH SCHOOL STEM ENROLLMENT OF ENGLISH LEARNER STUDENTS

Over 963,000 English learner (EL) students were enrolled in high schools across the nation during the 2015–16 school year, representing
approximately 6 percent of total high school enrollment. Figure 9 presents the percentage distribution of students enrolled in high school
mathematics and science courses, by English learners. EL students represented 6 percent of students enrolled in Geometry and Biology.
EL students represented 2 percent of students enrolled in Calculus and advanced mathematics, 9 percent of students enrolled in Algebra I,
and 4 percent of students enrolled in Algebra II, Chemistry, and Physics.

U.S. Department of Education | Office for Civil Rights | ocrdata.ed.gov 9

 NEW RELEASE FOR 2018

FIGURE 10: Percentage distribution of students enrolled in high

school mathematics and science courses, by disability (IDEA)

Students with Students without

Disabilities (IDEA) Disabilities
Enrollment Enrollment

High School Enrollment 12% 88%

Algebra I 13% 87%

Geometry 9% 91%

Algebra II 6% 94%

Advanced Mathematics 4% 96%

Calculus 2% 98%

Biology 10% 90%

Chemistry 6% 94%

Physics 6% 94%

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, 2015–16.

HIGH SCHOOL STEM ENROLLMENT OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES (IDEA)

As used in this report, the term students with disabilities (IDEA) refers to students who receive special education and related services under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Nearly 2 million students with disabilities (IDEA) were enrolled across the nation’s high schools.
Students with disabilities (IDEA) accounted for 12 percent of student enrollment. Figure 10 presents the percentage distribution of students
enrolled in high school mathematics and science courses, by disability (IDEA). The enrollment of students with disabilities (IDEA) in mathemat-
ics and science courses ranged from 2 percent (Calculus) to 10 percent (Biology), except for Algebra I (13 percent).

10 2015–16 Civil Rights Data Collection | STEM COURSE TAKING

 NEW RELEASE FOR 2018

Data Highlights
† Note: Except where the percentage is below 1 percent, the percentages listed in these data highlights are rounded to the nearest whole
number. Counts of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand. Counts of 1,000 or greater are rounded to the
nearest hundred. Counts of less than 1,000 are rounded to the nearest ten. For the survey form and full definitions of all terms mentioned
in the report, visit ocrdata.ed.gov/SurveyDocuments.

CRDC Endnotes
1
CRDC data report students using the seven racial/ethnic categories found in the U.S. Department of Education’s Final Guidance
on Collecting, Maintaining and Reporting Data on Race and Ethnicity. The Final Guidance can be found at
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/rediguide/pdf/appendixA.pdf. For brevity in this report, the racial/ethnic categories are referred to as “race.”
2
For the purpose of STEM course taking, high schools include any school or justice facility with any Grade 9–12 or ungraded high school age
students.
3
Advanced mathematics courses cover the following topics: trigonometry, trigonometry/algebra, trigonometry/analytic geometry,
trigonometry/mathematics analysis, analytic geometry, mathematics analysis, mathematics analysis/analytic geometry, probability and
statistics, and pre-calculus.
4
As used in this report, the terms “students with disabilities (IDEA)” and “IDEA” are used to refer to students who receive special
education and related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act according to an Individualized Education Program,
Individualized Family Service Plan, or service plan. These students may or may not receive related aids and services under Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, amended. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1419; 34 C.F.R. pt. 300. Part B of the IDEA addresses the obligations of States
and school districts to provide special education and related services to eligible children with disabilities. The Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) in the Department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) administers the IDEA. The national
percentages reported by OSEP may differ from those reported by OCR due to differences in the population of students included in the
collection. For information about the IDEA, please see osep.grads360.org and www.ed.gov/osers/osep/index.html.
5
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by ESSA, defines an English learner, under 20 U.S.C. § 7801(20), as a student
(A) who is aged 3 through 21; and (B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school; and (C)(i) who
was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English; or who is both (ii)(I) a Native American or
Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and (II) who comes from an environment where a language other than English
has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or (iii) who is migratory, whose native language is
a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and (D) whose
difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual (i) the ability to
meet the challenging State academic standards; or (ii) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is
English; or (iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society. This definition was reflected in the CRDC’s 2015-16 school form.
6
For brevity in this report, student enrollment in schools that offered Grade 8 is referred to as Grade 8 enrollment.
7
The term “black” refers to persons who are black or African American. The term "Latino" refers to persons who are Hispanic or Latino of any
race.
8
High black and Latino enrollment refers to schools with more than 75 percent black and Latino student enrollment. This definition is
consistent with prior reports within OCR and other Department offices.

U.S. Department of Education | Office for Civil Rights | ocrdata.ed.gov 11

 NEW RELEASE FOR 2018
More About the CRDC
What is the purpose of the CRDC?
Since 1968, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) Office for Civil
Rights (OCR), or its predecessor agency, has conducted the Civil
Rights Data Collection (CRDC) to collect data on key education and
civil rights issues in our nation's public schools.
The CRDC collects a variety of information, including student
enrollment and educational programs and services, most of which is
disaggregated by race, sex, English learners, and disability.
The CRDC is a longstanding and critical aspect of the overall
enforcement and monitoring strategy used by OCR to ensure that
recipients of the Department’s Federal financial assistance do not
discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and
disability.
OCR relies on CRDC data from public school districts as it investigates
complaints alleging discrimination, initiates proactive compliance
reviews to focus on particularly acute or nationwide civil rights
compliance problems, and provides policy guidance and technical
assistance to educational institutions, parents, students, and others.
In addition, the CRDC is a valuable resource for other Department
offices and federal agencies, policymakers and researchers, educators
and school officials, parents and students, and other members of the
public who seek data on student equity and opportunity.
Under what authority does OCR conduct
the CRDC?
Section 203(c)(1) of the 1979 Department of Education Organization
Act conveys to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights the authority
to “collect or coordinate the collection of data necessary to ensure
compliance with civil rights laws within the jurisdiction of the Office
for Civil Rights.” The civil rights laws enforced by OCR include:
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits
discrimination based on race, color, and national origin;
• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits
discrimination based on sex; and
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disability.
OCR’s implementing regulations for each of these statutes require
recipients of the Department’s federal financial assistance to submit
to OCR “complete and accurate compliance reports at such times,
and in such form and containing such information” as OCR “may
determine to be necessary to enable [OCR] to ascertain whether
the recipient has complied or is complying” with these laws and
implementing regulations (34 CFR § 100.6(b), 34 CFR § 106.71,
12 2015–16 Civil Rights Data Collection | STEM COURSE TAKING
and 34 CFR § 104.61). Any data collection that OCR determines
is necessary to ascertain or ensure compliance with these laws is
mandatory.
For further general information about the CRDC, visit the CRDC FAQ
page.
Availability of Alternate Format
Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or
large print should be submitted to the Alternate Format Center by
calling 202.260.0852 or emailing the Section 508 Coordinator at
om_eeos@ed.gov.
Notice to Persons with Limited English Proficiency
If you have difficulty understanding English, you can request free
interpretation or translation assistance for Department information
that is available to the public. To find out more about these services,
please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1.800.872.5327)
(TTY: 1.800.877.8339) or email us at
ED.Language.Assistance@ed.gov.
You also can write to U.S. Department of Education, Information
Resource Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Avenue SW,
Washington, DC, 20202.
How to Contact the Department of Education and Office for
Civil Rights
United States Department of Education
Betsy DeVos, Secretary
Candice Jackson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Lyndon Baines Johnson Building
Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202-1100
Telephone: 800-421-3481 | FAX: 202-453-6012
TDD: 877-521-2172
Email: OCR@ed.gov | www.ed.gov/ocr
U.S. Department of Education
Office for Civil Rights
EXHIBIT 3
Protections Under the Law Against Sex
Discrimination
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51),
originally enacted in 1959, was designed to protect
the rights of Californians from arbitrary
discrimination and to guarantee their rights to full
and equal access to all public accommodations
regardless of sex.
Businesses that are Governed by the Filing a Complaint
Unruh Civil Rights Act
The Department of Fair Employment and
Housing ( DFEH or Department) is charged with
The list below includes examples of businesses that
the task of upholding the Unruh Act, and
are covered by the Unruh Act. This list is
ensuring that its laws and principles are not
non-exhaustive, and may include any place of public
violated. If you believe you are a victim of
accommodation regardless of whether the entity is a
unlawful discrimination, do not hesitate to call
traditional business or non-profit entity.
the DFEH and file a complaint following these
steps:

Discrimination by business establishments on the
basis of sex is against the law. It is unlawful for any Bars and Nightclubs.
business that is open to the general public to Restaurants.
discriminate against a patron based on any of the Hotels and Motels.
following classifications: sex, race, color, religion, Retail Shops.
ancestry, national origin, disability, medical Golf Courses.
condition, marital status, or sexual orientation. The Fitness Clubs or Gyms.
Unruh Act protection is not limited to these Theaters.
classifications. It is an Unruh Act violation for a Hospitals.
business to offer special treatment, whether Barber Shops and Beauty Salons.
preferential or detrimental, to one class of patrons Non-Profit Organizations (open to
regardless of the business' motives for doing so. the public).
Public Agencies.
Housing Accommodations.
Contact the DFEH by calling the toll
free number at (800) 884-1684 to
schedule an appointment.
"Be prepared to present specific
facts about the alleged harassment
of discrimination.
"Provide any copies you may have
of documents that support the
charges in the complaint.
Keep records and documents about
the complaint, such as receipts,
stubs, bills, applications, flyers,
witness contact information, and
other materials.

Examples of Sex-Based Discrimination establishment while providing admittance to

Under the Unruh Violations
The following are examples of potential violations of
the Unruh Act. The list is not meant to be
exhaustive, and there is other conduct that may
violate the Act.
Providing free admission, discounts, or
promotional gifts to only one sex.
Charging men and women different prices for
comparable services, such as clothing
alterations, haircuts, dry cleaning, or drinks at a
restaurant or bar.
Maintaining "women only" or "men only" exercise members of the other sex without the same
areas of a fitness club or gym and excluding or level or degree of search.
deterring the opposite sex from those areas.
Promoting a business with "ladies night"
Establishing a "women only" or "men only" business
discounts on admission and services.
establishment which would otherwise be completely
Denying access to a business, such as a
open to the public.
nightclub to a particular sex, or giving
Excluding one sex from a business premises during
preference to one sex over the other.
certain times.
Posting signs or adopting policies for "women
recommended" or "men preferred."
Requiring members of one sex to submit to searches
to gain admittance to a business.
 Complaints must be filed within one year
from the last act of discrimination. The DFEH
will conduct an impartial investigation.
The Department is not an advocate for either
the person complaining or the person
complained against. The Department
represents the state. The DFEH will, if
possible, try to assist both parties to resolve
the complaint. If a voluntary settlement
cannot be reached, and there is sufficient
evidence to establish a violation of the law,
the Department may issue an accusation
and litigate the case before the Fair
Employment and Housing Commission or in
civil court. This law provides for a variety of
remedies that may include the following:
Out-of-pocket expenses.
Cease and desist orders.
Damages for emotional distress.
Statutory damages of three times the
amount of actual damages, or a minimum
of $4,000 for each offense.
For more information, contact the DFEH
Toll Free (800) 884-1684
Sacramento area and out-of-state (916) 227-0551
Videophone for the Deaf (916) 226-5285
E-mail contact.center @dfeh.ca.gov
Web site www.dfeh.ca.gov
Facebook State of California
http://www.facebook.com /#!/pages/Department-of-F DEPARTMENT OF
air-Employment-and-Housing/183801915445
FAIR EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING
YouTube http://www.youtube.com /califdfeh
Twitter http://twitter.com /DFEH
In accordance with the California Government Code and
Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, this publication
can be made available in Braille, large print, computer disk, or
tape cassette as a disability-related reasonable
accommodation for an individual with a disability. To discuss
how to receive a copy of this publication in an alternative
format, please contact the DFEH at the telephone numbers
and links above.

References 4. Ibister v. Boys' Club of Santa Cruz (1985) 40 Cal.3d

1. California Civil Code section 51.

2. Rotary Club of Duarte v. Board of Directors (1987)
178 Cal.App.3d 1035. A non-profit club was a
business establishment under the Unruh Act because
it offered its members substantial "commercial
advantages and business benefits." Membership in
these kinds of organizations is a privilege or
advantage under the Unruh Act. Thus, termination of
membership based on sex is prohibited.
3. Warfield v. Peninsula Golf & Country Club (1995)
10 Cal.4th 594. By offering the public access to its
facilities, the County Club became a business
establishment under the Unruh Act and could not
exclude women.
72. A non-profit activities center for boys was a place of
public accommodation, and excluding an entire class of
patrons, such as women, was illegal.
5. Angelucci v. Century Supper Club (2007) 41 Cal.4th
160. It was a violation of the Unruh Act for a night club to
charge its male patrons a higher price for admission.
The patrons need not affirmatively request
nondiscriminatory treatment, but rather, are entitled to it.
The Unruh Act imposes a compulsory duty upon
business establishments to serve all persons without
arbitrary discrimination.
6. Koire v. Metro Car Wash ( 1985) 40 Cal.3d 24. The
Unruh Act broadly condemns any business
establishment's policy of gender-based price discounts.
Unruh Civil Rights Act
All persons within the jurisdiction of this
state are free and equal, and no matter
what their sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability,
medical condition, marital status, or
sexual orientation are entitled to the full
and equal accommodations, advantages,
facilities, privileges, or services in all
business establishments of every kind
whatsoever.
EXHIBIT 3
 BUREAU OF EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General
GAMBLING Mathew J. Campoy

CONTROL Acting Bureau Chief

NUMBER 8 GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENT ADVISORY January 18, 2008

“LADIES ONLY TOURNAMENTS”

It has come to the attention of the Bureau of Gambling Control that some gambling establishments
conduct “ladies only” poker tournaments that exclude men from participating, or admit them on
different terms from those accorded to women. It is the Bureau’s view that such tournaments may
violate California’s anti-discrimination laws.

Under the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code sections 51 and 51.5), businesses may not
discriminate in admittance, prices, or services offered to customers based on the customers’ sex,
race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual
orientation. “Ladies only” tournaments or any other promotional events that fail to admit men and
women to advertised activities on an equal basis regardless of sex are unlawful. It may also be
unlawful under the Unruh Act to advertise tournaments as “ladies only” even if men are in fact
admitted.

The Bureau will approve only those events that include the following features: the event will be
open to all customers, the promotional gifts will be given equally to all event participants, the fees
and prices will be the same for all event participants, any discounts will not be based on gender or
another personal characteristic protected by the Unruh Act, and the event’s promotional materials do
not advertise gender-based discounts or imply a gender-based entrance policy or any other unlawful
discriminatory practice.

Gambling establishments should take notice that pursuant to Business and Professions Code
section 125.6, violations of the Unruh Act are cause for discipline under the Gambling
Control Act.

For more information regarding this advisory, contact the California Department of Justice, Bureau of
Gambling Control at (916) 263-3408.