On January 23, the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) released a report titled “Non-Negotiable: Negotiation Doesn’t Help African-Americans and Latinos on Dealer-Financed Car Loans.” The report provides the results of CRL’s investigation of whether racial disparities occur in auto financing, “considering the consumer’s attempt to negotiate their interest rates and comparison-shop at other institutions.” The CRL also examined “other aspects of car buying by race and ethnicity, including the purchase of ancillary ‘add-on’ products and the accuracy of information provided by the dealer to the customer during the buying experience.” CRL states that its research “supports the likelihood that dealer practices, such as interest rate markups, have a discriminatory impact on borrowers of color.” Specifically, the CRL states its investigation revealed (i) African-American and Latino consumers attempt to negotiate pricing on car dealer loans just as much as white consumers, if not more, and their levels of comparison shopping are similar to those of white buyers; (ii) more borrowers of color reported receiving misleading information about their loans from car dealers, which served to negate the impact of negotiations or comparison shopping; and (iii) African Americans and Latinos are nearly twice as likely to be sold multiple add-on products as white consumers. The CRL recommends that policymakers (i) prohibit dealer compensation that varies based on the interest rate or other material, other than the loan’s principal balance; (ii) require dealers to disclose the actual costs of every add-on product sold during the financing process and to reveal the cost of the car with and without add-on products; and (iii) prohibit dealers from representing that the buyer is required to purchase ancillary products in order to obtain financing.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) sent a letter today to CFPB Director Richard Cordray once again pressing the CFPB for information about its March 2013 auto finance guidance and its actions since that time to pursue allegedly discriminatory practices by auto finance companies. That guidance, which the CFPB has characterized as a restatement of existing law, sought to establish publicly the CFPB’s grounds for asserting violations of ECOA against bank and nonbank auto finance companies for the alleged effects of facially neutral pricing policies.
The letter recounts numerous exchanges between members of Congress—including both Democratic and Republican members of the Committee—and the CFPB on this issue to demonstrate what the Chairman characterizes as “a pattern of obfuscation” by the Bureau. Mr. Hensarling explains that through a series of written requests—see, e.g. here, here, and here—as well as in-person exchanges, lawmakers have sought detailed information about the CFPB’s application of the so-called disparate impact theory of discrimination to impose liability on auto finance companies. The letter states that the CFPB has repeatedly refused to provide certain key information used in applying that theory through compliance examinations and enforcement actions, including information about regression analyses, analytical controls, and numerical thresholds employed by the Bureau. Read more…
This morning, the CFPB and the DOJ announced their first ever joint fair lending enforcement action to resolve allegations that an auto finance company’s dealer compensation policy, which allowed for auto dealer discretion in pricing, resulted in a disparate impact on certain minority borrowers. The $98 million settlement is the DOJ’s third largest fair lending action ever and the largest ever auto finance action.
Investigation and Claims
As part of the CFPB’s ongoing targeted examinations of auto finance companies’ ECOA compliance, the CFPB conducted an examination of this auto finance company in the fall of 2012. This finance company is one of the largest indirect automobile finance companies in the country which, according to the CFPB and DOJ’s estimates, purchased over 2.1 million non-subvented retail installment contracts from approximately 12,000 dealers between April 1, 2011 and present. The CFPB’s investigation of the finance company allegedly revealed pricing disparities in the finance company’s portfolio with regard to auto loans made by dealers to African-American, Hispanic, and Asian and Pacific Islander borrowers. The CFPB referred the matter to the DOJ just last month, and the DOJ’s own investigation resulted in findings that mirrored the CFPB’s.
Specifically, the federal authorities claim that, based on statistical analysis of the loan portfolios, using controversial proxy methodologies, the investigations showed that African-American borrowers were charged on average approximately 29 basis points more in dealer markup than similarly situated non-Hispanic whites for non-subvented retail installment contracts, while Hispanic borrowers and Asian/Pacific Islander borrowers were charged on average approximately 20 and 22 basis points more, respectively. The complaint also faults the finance company for not appropriately monitoring pricing disparities or providing fair lending training to dealers. Read more…
On October 31, the Philadelphia Inquirer and national media outlets reported that a tentative agreement has been reached to resolve the underlying claims at issue in Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey, et al. v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al., No. 11-1507, an appeal currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that could provide the Court an opportunity to rule on whether a disparate impact theory of liability is cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. Briefing before the Supreme Court has been ongoing—over the past week respondents filed their brief, as did numerous supporting parties, including a group of state attorneys general—and argument is scheduled for December 4. If the settlement holds, this will be the second time in recent years that a case involving these issues pending before the Court has settled before the Court had an opportunity to hear the case. Attention likely now will turn to litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over a HUD rule finalized earlier this year. That rule specifically authorized disparate impact or “effects test” claims under the Fair Housing Act. The case has been stayed by agreement of the parties pending the outcome in Mt. Holly.
On August 26, the petitioners in Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc. et al., No. 11-1507, filed their opening merits brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The petitioners argue that (i) under the ordinary meaning of the relevant FHA provision, intentional discrimination—and not a mere disparate impact—is required to establish a violation of Section 804(a) of the FHA, and (ii) because the HUD rule authorizing such claims “cannot be reconciled” with the plain language of the statute, it cannot be allowed Chevron doctrine deference and must be struck down. The respondents’ brief is due October 21.
On August 15, the defendants to an action initiated by two insurance trade groups challenging the HUD rule authorizing “disparate impact” or “effects test” claims under the Fair Housing Act entered an unopposed motion for a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey, et al. v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., et al., No. 11-1507. In requesting the stay, the defendants argue that the Mt. Holly appeal turns on the “same issues of statutory interpretation” presented by the trade groups’ challenge to the HUD rule; that is, whether a disparate impact theory of liability is cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.
New York Federal District Court Holds FHA Disparate Impact Claims Against Mortgage Securitizer Timely, ECOA Claims Time-Barred
On July 25, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that a putative class of African-American borrowers can pursue claims against a financial institution alleged to have financed and purchased so-called predatory subprime mortgage loans to be included in mortgage backed securities. Adkins v. Morgan Stanley, No. 12-7667, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 25, 2013). The borrowers allege that the institution implemented policies and procedures that supported the subprime lending of a mortgage originator in the Detroit area so that the institution could purchase, pool, and securitize those loans. The borrowers claim those policies violated the FHA and the ECOA because they disproportionately impacted minority borrowers who were more likely to receive subprime loans, putting those borrowers at higher risk of default and foreclosure.
In resolving the financial institution’s motion to dismiss, the court held that the borrowers sufficiently alleged a disparate impact under the FHA and, although the lawsuit was filed more than five years after the originator stopped originating mortgages, the two-year statute of limitations on their FHA claims is tolled by the discovery rule. The court explained that the disparate impact of a facially neutral policy may not become immediately apparent, and “[g]iving full effect to the FHA’s language and the policy behind the language requires a discovery rule recognizing that [the borrowers’] claim here did not accrue until they knew or had reason to know” that the policies were discriminatory. The court left open the possibility that the institution may prove at a later stage that public knowledge of the facts underlying the suit may be imputed to the borrowers to render their claims “discovered” at an earlier time and therefore time-barred.
The court held that the borrowers’ ECOA claims were not similarly timely because ECOA contains specific exceptions to its statute of limitations, and to apply a general discovery rule to ECOA claims would render those exceptions meaningless. Further, the court held that the ECOA claims are not timely pursuant to a continuing violations theory or equitable tolling.
The court granted the motion to dismiss the ECOA claims and a state law claim, and denied the motion to dismiss the FHA claims.
On June 26, two insurance associations filed a lawsuit challenging a rule promulgated earlier this year by HUD that authorizes so-called “disparate impact” or “effects test” claims under the Fair Housing Act. The rule provides support to private or governmental plaintiffs challenging housing or mortgage lending practices that have a “disparate impact” on protected classes of individuals, even if the practice is facially neutral and non-discriminatory and there is no evidence that the practice was motivated by a discriminatory intent. The rule also permits practices to be challenged based on claims that the practice improperly creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns. The insurance associations allege that the rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act because it contradicts the plain language of the relevant portion of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits only intentional discrimination. The complaint also alleges that the rule, if applied to homeowners’ insurance, would require insurers “to consider characteristics such as race and ethnicity and to disregard legitimate risk-related factors,” thereby forcing insurers “to provide and price insurance in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with well-established principles of actuarial practice and applicable state insurance law.”
On March 12, the Chicago-based Woodstock Institute released research claiming that mortgage lenders discriminate against female applicants. The research is presented in a “fact sheet” and previews a longer report the group plans to publish later this year. The study reviewed 2010 HMDA data on first lien single-family home purchase and refinance mortgage applications in the Chicago area and purports to show that (i) female-headed joint applications are much less likely to be originated than male-headed joint applications and (ii) this disparity holds true across all racial categories and is most pronounced for African American women. The Woodstock Institute further claims that these disparities are more pronounced for refinance loans. Based on its conclusions, the group urges federal regulators and enforcement authorities to conduct further investigation, including through enforcement of HUD’s recently finalized disparate impact rule. It also recommends that the CFPB prioritize enhancing the HMDA rules to make public more information to better identify discriminatory lending practices.
On February 8, HUD issued a final rule authorizing so-called “disparate impact” or “effects test” claims under the Fair Housing Act. The rule provides support for private or governmental plaintiffs challenging housing or mortgage lending practices that have a “disparate impact” on protected classes of individuals, even if the practice is facially neutral and non-discriminatory and there is no evidence that the practice was motivated by a discriminatory intent. The rule also will permit practices to be challenged based on claims that the practice improperly creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns.
In its final rule, HUD codified a three-step burden-shifting approach to determine liability under a disparate impact claim. Once a practice has been shown by the plaintiff to have a disparate impact on a protected class, the final rule states that the defendant would have the burden of showing that the challenged practice “is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests of the respondent . . . or defendant . . . . A legally sufficient justification must be supported by evidence and may not be hypothetical or speculative.” As proposed, the defendant would have had the burden of proving that the challenged practice “has a necessary and manifest relationship to one or more legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests.” Read more…
On December 21, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) announced that it filed with HUD a housing discrimination complaint against a major insurance company regarding the offering of hazard insurance in a certain geographic area. According to the statement filed in support of its complaint, NFHA alleges that the company refuses to underwrite homeowners’ insurance policies for homes that have flat roofs in the Wilmington, Delaware area, a policy that NFHA charges has a racially disparate impact on African-American and minority communities. Although insurance and insurers are not explicitly covered in the Fair Housing Act, NFHA argues that federal courts have given deference to HUD’s interpretation of the statute, holding that the Fair Housing Act applies to all types of discriminatory insurance practices. NFHA’s complaint is based on its own testing of independent insurance agencies and a single university study of the relationship between roof type and race in the Wilmington area. NFHA claims that its testing of six insurance agencies shows that independent insurance agents were willing to underwrite policies on homes with flat roofs, while agents affiliated only with the insurance company targeted by NFHA cited a company policy that disallowed underwriting policies on such homes. Further, NFHA claims that the university study found a statistically significant relationship between minority populations and homes that have flat roofs, and therefore the “no flat roof policy” disproportionately impacts African-American and minority communities. Moreover, NFHA claims that there is no business justification for such a policy and that the insurance company does not apply the same policy in other cities. Under its fair housing complaint procedures HUD will now conduct its own investigation and determine whether further administrative action is required.
Anyone who has been following enforcement activity in consumer financial services knows that fair lending is a key focal point for federal regulators, with recent huge monetary settlements and more likely to occur. It’s not just a large bank issue; community banks have also been targeted. What can bank boards of directors and management do to avoid or mitigate such regulatory actions? Identify the risks and address and resolve them before they become big risks.
Over the past year, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has entered into the three largest fair lending settlements in history – all of which carried multimillion dollar price tags to resolve allegations of discrimination in retail and wholesale mortgage lending by major lenders. The DOJ, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and prudential banking regulators (FDIC, Federal Reserve, and OCC) are all aggressively pursuing, and in some cases actively soliciting, fair lending cases. Many of these cases are based on the controversial “disparate impact” theory of discrimination, which narrowly escaped review by the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2012, to determine whether this legal theory is even cognizable under federal fair lending laws. Notwithstanding the unresolved question over the use of disparate impact in the fair lending context, the federal banking regulatory and enforcement agencies have uniformly stated that they will prosecute fair lending cases under this legal theory.
Fair lending allegations are not limited to large national retail banks. Community banks have also been targeted in these investigations and complaints. For example, in June 2011, DOJ reached a settlement with Nixon State Bank to resolve allegations that the bank had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) by charging higher prices on unsecured consumer loans made to Hispanic borrowers, which required Nixon to pay approximately $100,000 in restitution. Nixon State Bank did not maintain written loan pricing guidelines for its unsecured consumer loans; instead, the bank’s loan officers were granted broad discretion in handling all aspects of the unsecured consumer loan transaction. DOJ alleged that this policy had a disparate impact on Hispanic borrowers. In a more recent case from September 2012, Luther Burbank Savings Bank (discussed below) agreed to settle with DOJ for $2 million for setting a minimum residential mortgage loan amount that adversely impacted African American and Hispanic borrowers.
Regulators or plaintiffs typically demonstrate “disparate impact” through a burden-shifting test that begins with an allegation that a lender applies a facially neutral policy or practice consistently to all credit applicants, but the policy or practice has a disproportionately adverse impact on members of a group protected under ECOA or the Fair Housing Act, the federal fair lending laws (protected class group).* If the first prong of the analysis is satisfied, the burden shifts to the lender who must prove that there was a legitimate, non-discriminatory business justification for the policy at issue. If this prong is satisfied by the lender, the burden shifts back to the regulator or plaintiff to prove that there is a less discriminatory alternative that achieves the same result. Under the disparate impact theory, no evidence of intentional discrimination is required.
Example of disparate impact:
- A community bank maintains a residential mortgage lending policy that precludes mortgages on homes that are more than 50 years old. The area of town where homes tend to be over 50 years in age is predominantly Hispanic. As a result, the bank’s lending policy, which appears facially neutral, has a disproportionately adverse impact on Hispanic borrowers as a protected class group and has the effect of restricting access to credit for Hispanic borrowers. The bank is unable to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory business justification for the policy.
Set forth below are six “red flags” for fair lending risk that you should be aware of so you can determine whether your institution is taking appropriate action. Read more…
On August 27, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved a settlement between the DOJ and GFI Mortgage Bankers, Inc., a nonbank mortgage lender, resolving allegations that certain of the lender’s pricing policies disproportionately impacted African-American and Hispanic borrowers in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). The DOJ brought the case in part under the disparate impact theory of discrimination, by which it attempts to establish discrimination based solely on a statistical analysis of the outcomes of a neutral policy without having to show that the lender intentionally discriminated against certain borrowers. In the consent order, the lender acknowledged that a statistical analysis performed by the government indicated that the note interest rates and fees it charged on mortgage loans to qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers were higher than those charged to non-Hispanic white borrowers. Prior to the settlement, the lender had filed a motion to dismiss the DOJ lawsuit, arguing that the DOJ’s disparate impact claims are not cognizable under the FHA or ECOA, and challenging the government’s statistical analysis. Under the agreement, the lender agreed to pay $3.5 million over five years in compensation to several hundred borrowers identified by the DOJ, as well as a $55,000 civil penalty. The lender also agreed to enhance certain of its lending policies and monitor and document loan prices and pricing decisions. Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the FHA remains unsettled, though the U.S. Supreme Court may have an opportunity to address the issue in the near future. BuckleySandler recently prepared a white paper examining the issue and explaining why the FHA does not permit disparate impact claims. A copy of DOJ’s announcement of the settlement may be found at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/August/12-crt-1052.html.