Pub. 6 2015 Issue 3

www.wvbankers.org 14 West Virginia Banker A recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States may make it easier for borrowers to claim discrimination when denied a loan. In late June 2015, the Court addressed whether lawsuits brought under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) 1 required a plaintiff to show that the defendant intentionally discriminated against him or her. The Court held that the FHA does not require that. Its decision now allows lawsuits under the FHA if a housing policy has a discriminatory effect when it is implemented even if the people implementing it had no intent to discriminate. Commentators have been watching this issue for years and waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision as they believe it signals how courts may rule on discrimination claims brought under other statutes, such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, potentially challenging the way in which a bank makes loans. A t the heart of the issue is the language used in the FHA, which was enacted as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. It provides that it is unlawful “[t]o refuse to sell or rent . . . or to negotiate for the sale or rental, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” That language may seem simple enough. However, a dispute has grown over exactly how someone violates the FHA. One camp has argued that, in order to Supreme Court Decision May Make It Easier for Borrowers to Sue for Discrimination By Nicholas P. Mooney II, Spilman, Thomas & Battle