Unusual OCC Order Hits Bank for Discriminating Against White Males

Print
Email
Reprints
Comments (3)
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Google+

WASHINGTON A Maryland community bank that was recently cited by regulators for lending policies that allegedly favored minorities and women has become proof for some of just how frustrating it is for institutions to comply with fair lending laws.

Pikesville-based Community First Bank, which has just $7 million of assets, was slapped in March with an enforcement action by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency because its lending practices showed it had inadvertently charged higher loan rates for white men and married couples.

The disparity stemmed from a lending program created by the bank to specifically assist minorities, which capped the institution's compensation at 2.5% of the loan amount for minority and women borrowers. Such a cap was not in place for white borrowers, causing the bank to generally charge them more.

The OCC ordered the bank to refund 64 affected borrowers an average of $1,144 per person an amount far higher than the $300 that most struggling borrowers received through the recent independent foreclosure review settlement.

"In all my years of practice, I've never seen this before," said Frank Bonaventure, a partner at Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver, who represented the bank. "There was no intention to discriminate based on the circumstances surrounding this case."

Though reverse discrimination allegations are rare, the case reinforces bankers' fears of navigating the tangled web of fair lending regulations that they face. New products, discount offers or even policies designed to be consumer-friendly can have a so-called "disparate impact" that disadvantages a legally protected class.

"There are institutions out there that could be engaging in lending practices with no worldly attempt to discriminate or to treat people unfairly," said Michael Mierzewski, a partner at Arnold and Porter LLP. "But unless they're monitoring to make sure their policies and procedures are not having disparate treatment or impact, they could be in for a rude awakening."

The legal theory behind disparate impact has been around for decades, but regulators have begun citing it more frequently in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

Tougher mortgage rules have also heightened bank fears that they could inadvertently commit fair lending violations. For example, the new rules effectively encourage banks to make so-called "qualified mortgages" to ultra-safe borrowers. Many banks have vowed only to make QM loans because they have a legal safe harbor, but worry that could result in denying loans to riskier borrowers that may include minorities or single women.

The broader issue was the centerpiece of an all-day conference last week hosted by law firms about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

"Disparate impact and fair lending is just one piece of what I see as a tremendous legal minefield that's going to impact mortgage lending over the next 20 years," said Thomas Vartanian, a corporate counselor and regulatory advisor at Dechert, during the panel.

Some bankers argue it's safer not to offer any specialized products or discount rates to any consumer.

"You've got to look at the business justification because if you look hard enough, you're going to find some kind of disparity," said Thomas Eck, the associate general counsel specializing in fair lending at Capital One Financial, who also spoke at the panel.

Eck said the gap in disparity that regulators use to cite fair lending is shrinking, making it more difficult for banks to justify that their business in a certain product or region is necessary.

"Even the banks that have the resources and the will to comply with fair lending laws to the best of their ability still face pretty significant challenges," said Eck, a former attorney at the OCC and Bank of America. "And it really goes to ... a lack of clarity with respect to the fair lending rules and really, with respect to disparate impact" from regulators.

Bank regulators have argued that they take a consistent approach toward fair lending laws, which have existed for decades. But bankers and their lawyers adamantly disagree, saying the onslaught of new rules and multi-agency coordination on consumer protection will likely lead to more disparate impact accusations.

The regulators "have been enormously successful in expanding the reach of what constitutes discrimination, at least in terms of allegations and bringing cases with the use of " disparate impact, said Andrew Sandler, chief executive of Treliant Risk Advisors, during the panel. "Because, if you discriminate on the basis of risk and you offer less good pricing or deny credit-impaired borrowers, members of protected classes are disproportionately in that group."

The Justice Department has been one of the few agencies to publicly admit they have ramped up enforcement on disparate impact and other fair lending violations.

"It's been a very, very active time with the Department of Justice's fair lending and enforcement program," said Jon Seward, the agency's deputy of housing and civil enforcement.

Seward noted that in the last 18 months, Justice has settled 9 fair lending cases, significantly higher than the typical two or three cases settled per year.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

(3) Comments

SEE MORE IN

RELATED TAGS

Legal Bills Pile Up at Banks
Each quarter banks report their worst-case estimates of costs tied to lawsuits and regulatory probes. Some banks reported lower figures in recent quarters, but others are braced to spend more to resolve legacy issues. New legal threats loom, too.

(Image: Fotolia)

Comments (3)
"The disparity stemmed from a lending program created by the bank to specifically assist minorities, which capped the institution's compensation at 2.5% of the loan amount for minority and women borrowers. Such a cap was not in place for white borrowers, causing the bank to generally charge them more."

HUD Disparate impact rule specifically states the lender is in the clear if they offer the same products and can show their program is "necessary to achieve one or more if its substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests." Special programs based on race are blatant violations of the FHA. This isn't that hard and blaming HUD because you can't compete fairly is like whining that you can't be in the NBA because you're too short.
Posted by editengine | Wednesday, May 08 2013 at 10:44AM ET
editengine:

You are absolutely correct! I can't believe this article's insinuation that the OCC is somehow issuing an "unusual order." This clearly demonstrates to me that American Banker does not fully understand the difference between Disparate IMPACT and Disparate TREATMENT. What this tiny bank did was create a policy that is CLEARLY a violation of FHA and ECOA. Their policy is based both on race and gender (Disparate TREATMENT) and offers more favorable pricing to these groups! This IS reverse discrimination and shame on this bank! For this to be considered Disparate IMPACT (which I would agree is very hard to avoid without sophisticated monitoring of your demographics) is not a valid excuse. I hate regulators too...don't get me wrong. But, in this instance, this bank is totally in the wrong!
Posted by bankerjaymz | Friday, May 10 2013 at 8:18PM ET
editengine:

You are absolutely correct! I can't believe this article's insinuation that the OCC is somehow issuing an "unusual order." This clearly demonstrates to me that American Banker does not fully understand the difference between Disparate IMPACT and Disparate TREATMENT. What this tiny bank did was create a policy that is CLEARLY a violation of FHA and ECOA. Their policy is based both on race and gender (Disparate TREATMENT) and offers more favorable pricing to these groups! This IS reverse discrimination and shame on this bank! For this to be considered Disparate IMPACT (which I would agree is very hard to avoid without sophisticated monitoring of your demographics) is not a valid excuse. I hate regulators too...don't get me wrong. But, in this instance, this bank is totally in the wrong!
Posted by bankerjaymz | Friday, May 10 2013 at 8:18PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.
Already a subscriber? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.