On August 27, 2015, David Scheffel, Joe Lynyak, Nicholas Vlietstra and Eric Epstein of Dorsey’s Consumer Financial Services Practice Group presented a Webinar on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Inclusive Communities decision, in which the Court held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. You can hear a playback of the Webinar at this link. We discuss the litigation and regulatory implications of this important decision.
Consumer Financial Services Legal Update Blog
Because the scope of the Supreme Court appeal was limited to a question of law, namely whether the FHA contemplates disparate impact liability, the Supreme Court’s opinion does not fully elaborate on the facts of the case. The record of the underlying District Court proceedings, which culminated in a bench trial, paints an even more complete picture of how disparate impact litigation can lead to arguably absurd results.
On July 14, 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced they had reached a “groundbreaking settlement” with American Honda Finance Corporation (“Honda”). The settlement resolves allegations that Honda engaged in racial discrimination by charging higher interest rates on auto loans to minority borrowers. But what is the legal basis for the CFPB’s supervision of auto lenders? And what methodology did the CFPB use to establish the connection between discretion in interest rate markups and racial discrimination in auto lending?
Financial institutions and others involved in the servicing of residential mortgage loans need to be aware of the duties that can be triggered by receipt of a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”), particularly in light of recent changes to the statutory response times applicable to QWRs.
The mission of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) is to “regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under the Federal consumer financial laws.” See 12 U.S.C. § 5491(a). So why is the CFPB suing ITT Educational Services, Inc., an educational services provider?
Eric B. Epstein authored this article for The Banking Law Journal regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Jesinoski and the implications of the decision for the student loan industry.
The Burden-Shifting Framework in Disparate Impact Cases: The Inclusive Communities Decision and HUD’s Disparate Impact Regulation
In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. See Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. ___, 2015 WL 2473449 (Jun. 25, 2015). The specific issue on appeal in Inclusive Communities was whether Congress intended the FHA to open the door to disparate impact litigation, and the Court answered that question in the affirmative.
The “borrower defense to repayment” rule has received widespread attention in connection with the problem of student loan defaults, and this article authored by Dorsey partner Eric B. Epstein and Dorsey associate Jessica D. Mikhailevich seeks to place this rule in legal and historical context.
Dorsey partner Eric B. Epstein and Dorsey associate Daniel W. Beebe authored an article for the New York Real Estate Law Reporter discussing the new Integrated Disclosure Rule, focusing on the question of whether this new regulation will preempt certain aspects of New York State law. View the PDF copy of the article appearing in New York Real Estate Law Reporter.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. SUMMARY. In Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. ___, 2015 WL 2473449 (Jun. 25, 2015), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that disparate impact discrimination claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, 82 Stat. 81, as amended,...
Jesinoski was a landmark decision concerning a borrower’s right to rescind a residential mortgage refinance loan. In this Webinar, Dorsey attorneys Joseph T. Lynyak, David A. Scheffel and Eric B. Epstein discuss the implications of this decision for the mortgage industry.