The case that generated last summer’s Supreme Court decision allowing disparate impact cases to be brought under the Fair Housing Act, Inclusive Communities Project Inc. v. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, was dismissed on last week by the district court judge charged with determining whether the housing advocacy plaintiff met the Court’s newly articulated standard for establishing disparate impact.
ABA and other financial services trade associations last week filed a friend of the court brief in the case of American Insurance Association v. HUD supporting AIA’s challenge to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s disparate impact rule.
A new report from the Federal Trade Commission outlines several risks related to discrimination for companies using “big data” to make decisions about credit, employment and marketing.
The Court noted in its opinion that on remand, the district court may need to review the City’s claims under the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Inclusive Communities decision.
ABA President and CEO Frank Keating wrote to bank CEOs today to update them on ABA’s pursuit of improved policies from regulatory agencies.
The financial regulators should move quickly to implement the Supreme Court’s guidance on using disparate impact to enforce fair lending rules, according to an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily today.
ABA today asked the financial regulators and law enforcement agencies to include in their guidance, exam procedures and appropriate regulations the Supreme Court’s framework for using disparate impact analysis to enforce the Fair Housing Act.
Fair lending today calls for robust compliance management systems that track all products, customer interactions, and variations in pricing or policy—and that foster corrective action when needed.
ABA yesterday released a bank members-only staff analysis of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Texas v. Inclusive Communities Project, which found that “disparate impact” analysis to demonstrate discrimination claims is recognized under the Fair Housing Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that disparate impact claims are enforceable under the Fair Housing Act. The decision in the case — Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project — included a note of caution that statistical disparities only impose liability if plaintiffs can connect it to a defendant’s policy causing the disparity in order to “protect defendants against abusive disparate-impact claims.”