Just a quick query to readers of the timing of an Office of Comptroller of the Currency enforcement action: Was the release of a discrimination enforcement action the day before the OCC defends its enforcement authority over state discrimination laws a case of just good timing or clever calculating?
On Monday the OCC released a consent order against William Anderson, a former vice president and branch manager of The First National Bank of Pontotoc, Pontotoc, Miss., for discriminating against female loan applicants. On Tuesday, the OCC will attempt to defend its claim as the sole enforcement authority over national banks. We find it hard to believe that these two events are unrelated.
Just look at the timeline: The OCC found that Anderson, who was employed at the bank from January 1989 until he was terminated May 2004, discriminated against female applicants for credit, female borrowers, and female accountholders by "severe, pervasive, and unwelcome sexual harassment" in connection with their real estate and credit transactions. In the consent order, the OCC barred Anderson from participating in the activities of any federally insured depository institution unless he obtains written consent form the comptroller and the institution´s regulator.
The charges against Anderson are serious, including "personal dishonesty" and a "continued disregard for the safety and soundness of the bank." On April 27, 2006, the Justice Department filed a complaint against the bank for the action. In that complaint the Justice Department alleges that Anderson subjected female customers to offensive and unwanted verbal sexual statements, sexual touching, solicitations for sex, and demands for sexual favors in return for favorable credit transactions.
Given the extreme severity of the charges, the timing of the order is welcomed news for the OCC. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will decide in Cuomo v Clearing House Association LLC, whether state officials are prohibited by the OCC from enforcing state consumer protection laws, specifically discrimination measures.
Enforcement actions can typically take years to complete. But the offending banker was terminated in May 2004, so did it really take five years for regulators to prove these actions? And did that investigation just happen, by coincidence, to be completed the day before the OCC is set to defend, before the Supreme Court, its record as the sole enforcer of rules for national banks?
