US DOJ Investigating Lending Discrimination Against Native Americans

In a November 30, 2010 speech at the 2010 District of New Mexico Tribal Consultation conference, Thomas Perez , the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, confirmed that his Division is pursuing "several investigations" into potential lending discrimination against Native Americans.

[W]e know that minority communities were hit particularly hard in the foreclosure crisis, and we have created a Fair Lending unit to address any past and future credit discrimination.  Access to credit is the foundation of wealth in our nation, and in order to have real equal opportunity, individuals must have equal access to credit.  Particularly in communities where unemployment rates were already high pre-recession, as with many Native communities, it is critical that we remain vigilant in enforcing fair housing and fair lending laws to ensure they do not suffer even further. 

Several years ago, the Civil Rights Division settled a lending case that alleged that a lender that operated in parts of the West and Southwest had refused to make loans to people who lived on Indian reservations.  Age-old tactics like this unfortunately remain all too common, and we remain committed to aggressive enforcement – we currently have several investigations into potential lending discrimination against Native Americans based on the fact that they live in Indian country.  Fair and equal access to credit is fundamental in providing economic opportunities to those in Indian Country and elsewhere, and we will not tolerate lenders that restrict access to consumer credit on equal terms because of a person's national origin and where they live.  

Perez did not provide further details about the on-going lending discrimination investigations. AAG Perez's full speech is available here.

The Justice Department has consistently announced that prosecuting lending discrimination is a top priority for the Civil Rights Division.   While there may be several "on going" investigations, to date few have resulted in litigation or public settlement agreements.  According to the Civil Rights Division's list of significant cases, the Division has brought only one lending discrimination matter in 2010--an April 2010 settlement between AIG subsidiaries and the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, of which the Department is a member.

AAG Perez Reiterates DOJ's Emphasis on Lending Discrimination Enforcement

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.