Credit, Housing Discrimination

As of July 21, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act's Regulation B guts core protections against credit discrimination, including claims alleging disparate impact and discouraging applicants. This article explains the changes while suggesting alternative approaches, including disparate impact claims under other statutes and reverse redlining claims against predatory and unfair lending.

A new HUD guidance explains that tenant screening companies and landlords that use them may potentially violate the Fair Housing Act’s anti-discrimination provisions, which could give rise to private remedies. As explained in this article, the guidance singles out problematic tenant screening practices involving credit history, criminal records, and eviction filings, and lists recommended landlord and screening company actions.

This article explains why an April 28, 2022, Supreme Court ruling concerning the unavailability of emotional distress damages applies only to four federal discrimination statutes, links to practice tips when otherwise seeking emotional distress damages, and considers whether emotional distress alone is sufficient for federal court constitutional standing.

This article provides 12 reasons for bringing reverse redlining claims against predatory lenders, under the Equal Credit Opportunity, Fair Housing, and/or Civil Rights Acts. Reverse redlining targets predatory practices at communities of color or other protected groups, whether or not better terms are offered elsewhere. Recent cases bringing reverse redlining claims are included.

A September 3, 2020, HUD action to limit Fair Housing Act disparate impact claims underscores the underutilized power of credit discrimination statutes to remedy marketplace misconduct affecting communities of color and other vulnerable consumers. This article describes the power, broad scope, and varied applications of federal and state credit discrimination statutes, and also sets out the implications for consumer lawyers of the HUD rule change.