Will CFPB's use of disparate impact be altered by Supreme Court housing ruling?

Will a Supreme Court opinion in a Texas civil-rights case alleging the state's home practices led to a disparate effect on African Americans establish a precedent which could change the CFPB's crack down on vehicle financing?
This will depend on who you request. Car Dealer lawyers say the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will not profit from the choice, but government authorities consider the ruling could lead to a change in the Customer Economic Protection Bureau's use of the disparate impact concept in the long term.
The opinion in the pending situation, Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs vs. The Inclusive Communities Project, is anticipated in June. The situation includes claims that Tx broken the 1968 Fair Housing Act in the way in which it allotted low income housing tax credits in Dallas. It maintains the Texas division of housing fortified residential segregation by regularly allocating the credits in black neighborhoods as an alternative to distributing them across all home communities, thereby encouraging consolidation.
Still accessible?
The situation focuses on the disparate impact principle, which holds a policy or practice could be considered discriminatory and prohibited if it h-AS a disproportionate adverse-effect on minorities or another protected courses, even if unintentional.
The Supreme Court will determine if the disparate impact standard will stay accessible to all those whining of housing discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has employed disparate impact to establish prohibited discrimination in auto-finance.
In line with the CFPB, automobile lenders' practice of letting car dealers to establish their particular financing reservation sums for organizing car loans results in officially protected teams spending higher rates of interest than other similarly situated debtors. That disparate effect amounts to prohibited discrimination, the CFPB states.
Ally Financial Inc. in December 2013 consented to spend $98 million in restitution and civil penalties for so-called discrimination against minority customers under a consent order with the CFPB and the U.S. Justice Department. Althea Gibson denied permitting discrimination.
'Concentrated narrowly'
Jess Sharp, managing director of the Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, mentioned that even though the situation doesn't immediately align with car giving, a ruling that bars disparate effect could propel a comparable change in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in the future.
"The Highest Court is exclusively focused narrowly on the Fair Housing Act," Sharp stated. "The link to the automobile lending industry is the Equal Credit Opportunity Act has quite similar language in regulations the government depends upon to use disparate impact."
The outcome of the situation will not change what the CFPB and other regulators can do instantly, but over time, a precedent in home could under-cut CFPB's argument that it can use disparate effect under ECOA, Sharp stated.
'Minimal' impact
Even though the CFPB has used the disparate impact concept to auto-finance, lawyer Kenneth Rojc, controlling associate at Nisen & Elliott Automotive Finance, differs the tribunal's opinion could result in a car giving change. No matter the High Court's opinion, disparate effect in the subprime-mortgage area does not align with car giving, he stated.
"The effect of the case will be minimal as the disparate effect in relation to the automobile lending sector is significantly diffent compared to the home arena," he stated.
Subprime mortgage lending is at the mercy of the Fair Housing Act, another statute in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act that automobile lenders follow, he stated.
"This improvement is not going to move the needle for the CFPB," he stated. "It can't be interpreted to the auto finance world."
'Conceptual likeness'
A Supreme Court opinion in favor of Tx could cement that disparate influence and prohibited discrimination do not always correlate, stated Leonard Bellavia, someone at Bellavia Blatt & Crossett.
"Although the Texas circumstance affects the Fair Housing Act rather than car giving under ECOA, there's an apparent conceptual likeness," Bellavia stated. "A ruling favorable to Tx would basically be a Supreme Court pronouncement that disparate influence and prohibited discrimination will not be always overlapping theories. It could be an additional nail in the coffin of the CFPB's initiative against automobile lenders."

It's possible for you to reach Hannah Lutz at [email protected].

Labels:
Business and Finance
Dealers
Authorities
Retail
Finance & Insurance
Bank and Financing

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Read Source

27.05.2015
ID:2103

More news from this source:

1. Tell us about retail high achievers under 40
2. Suits target price-fixing parts makers
3. Soaring on the wings of the snowbirds
4. Volvo recalls 59,000 cars over software fault
5. Hyundai Ioniq targets Prius, but not in sales