Financial Services Litigation & Investigation Monitor : Financial Services Lawyer & Attorney : Perkins Coie Law Firm : Government Investigations, Class Actions

The Associated Press reports that Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has sued Countrywide Home Loans, alleging the company discriminated against African American and Latino borrowers in Illinois between 2005 and 2007.  The complaint includes allegations that Countrywide charged African American and Latino borrowers higher rates and fees compared to similarly situated white borrowers.   The complaint states that Countrywide engaged "in practices that resulted in a disparate impact and disparate treatment of African American and Latino borrowers.  The complaint also alleges that Countrywide utilized lending standards that had no economic basis and were discriminatory in effect..."

While the complaint includes allegations not unfamiliar in lending discrimination cases, it may spark important legal analysis regarding the use of the disparate impact theory as the sole basis to provide lending discrimination.  See prior posting  - "AAG Perez Reiterates DOJ's Emphasis on Lending Discrimination Enforcement," June 24, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Speaking at a June 23, 2010 Brookings conference, the Department of Justice's Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division made clear that investigating and prosecuting lending discrimination is a top priority for his administration.  As reported on mainjustice.com, AAG Thomas Perez reaffirmed the DOJ's commitment to increased oversight and enforcement of the financial industry, as well as close interaction among the federal regulators that police the financial systems.

Mr. Perez also reiterated that his division will use the "disparate impact" theory to file lending discrimination case.  “The government must be a credible deterrent,” he said. “Our Fair Lending Unit will use every tool in our arsenal, including but not limited to disparate impact theory.”  Perez made similar remarks at the May 2010 Legal Issues Conference of the Mortgage Banker's Association.  The disparate impact theory, as articulated in U.S. Supreme Court's 1971 decision Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), allows a plaintiff to challenge a facially neutral practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class; evidence of an intent to discriminate is not required.  The DOJ's reliance on the disparate impact theory as the sole basis to file a lending discrimination case signals a marked departure from its prior lending discrimination cases, none of which relied exclusively on disparate impact.  The department's aggressive approach will undoubtedly lead to a significant increase in enforcement cases and litigation in this area.  And lenders anticipating this change in enforcement are wise to adapt their compliance program accordingly. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link