Fair Housing and Disparate Impact – NMP Skip to main content

Fair Housing and Disparate Impact

Jul 17, 2015
The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is seeking public comment on a proposed rule to establish standards and criteria for the validation and approval of third-party credit score models that would be used by the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)

Question: I have been reading about a recent important United States Supreme Court decision which affects fair housing laws. Can you elaborate on the details of the case for me?

Answer: On June 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court (the Court) in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (the Case) upheld that “disparate impact” is a viable theory of liability under the United States Fair Housing Act. “Disparate impact” occurs when certain housing or lending policies, which are neutral or seemingly non-discriminatory on their face, have a disproportionally adverse effect or impact on a member of a protected class and there is no legitimate, non-discriminatory business need for the policy or practice causing such disparate impact.

In the Case, the Court ruled that a consumer may bring an action claiming fair housing discrimination based on disparate impact even if no intent to discriminate exists. The Court further upheld that liability may be found where a legitimate business interest for the policy or practice exists but there was a less discriminatory option available.

The decision in the Case is significant in that real estate and mortgage professionals may be found guilty of fair housing violations even if they do not intend for their policies and/or practices to discriminate against, or disproportionately affect, protected classes. Under the Fair Housing Act, protected classes include race or color, religion, national origin, sex, familial status (defined as children under the age of 18 living with a parent or legal custodian, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under 18), and disability or handicap.

An example of disparate impact could be a situation where a landlord adopts a policy which only permits tenants who have with full-time jobs. While this policy may not violate fair housing laws, it could bar disabled individuals (a protected class) who may not be able to work full-time even though they may meet the financial qualifications for the rental.



Neil Garfinkel is executive director/Realty & Title Services Compliance Group, and director/legal & regulatory compliance for Lenders Compliance Group.

About the author
Published
Jul 17, 2015
Vought To Face Congress Over CFPB Overhaul, Enforcement Pullback

Vought’s testimony also comes as a new poll suggests the CFPB retains broad support across party lines

Illinois Changes Property Tax Foreclosure Process To Return Surplus Equity

Borrowers can save remaining home equity after delinquent property taxes and fees are paid

CFPB Weighs Changes To TRID Timing And Mortgage Rescission Rules

The bureau is seeking feedback on whether federal disclosure requirements raise costs, delay closings or limit access to mortgage credit

CFPB Issues AI Underwriting Guidance On Adverse Action Notices

The agency says proprietary and machine-learning models do not relieve lenders of their fair lending and disclosure responsibilities

VantageScore Says 4.0 Model Could Unlock $1 Trillion In Mortgage Originations

New study says VantageScore 4.0 scores five million more creditworthy borrowers than FICO Score 10T, expanding lending opportunities as the industry prepares for the GSE credit score transition

MISMO Updates Mortgage Insurance Standards To Support FICO 10T, VantageScore 4.0

New implementation guide standardizes mortgage insurance data exchange, helping lenders, insurers and technology providers prepare systems for newer credit scoring models