Blockchain and Financial Services Blog

Showing 3 posts in Discrimination.


On the heels of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in the RL BB Acquisition case that we wrote about a couple of weeks ago comes a contrary decision from the Eighth Circuit on exactly the same issue.  Is a credit guarantor an “applicant” for credit, so that the protections of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) extend directly to a credit guarantor? The Eight Circuit says no. Read More ›


The Equal Credit Opportunity Act’s ban against credit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, national origin, and the other prohibited bases listed in the law – including marital status - is not terribly complex.  Since its enactment 40 years ago, the ECOA has generated only a small fraction of the lawsuits that the Truth in Lending Act has spawned.  Nevertheless, one ECOA rule in particular has continuously been an Achilles’ heel for creditors – the Spouse Guarantor Rule.  The Rule is particularly difficult to apply because it attempts to address what would seem to be a logical credit request in the structuring of a loan; that is, the personal guaranty of husband and wife business owners, who often hold jointly-owned assets.  A decision last month by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in RL BB Acquisition, LLC v. Bridgemill Commons Development Group, LLC, has now strengthened the Rule by giving it both sword and shield status in the arsenal of a spouse-guarantor defending the enforcement of a guaranty Read More ›

HUD Sets Uniform Standard for Evaluating Discriminatory Effect Claims

Last month, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) issued a formal rule relating to housing discrimination that went into effect Monday, March 18, 2013.[1] The Fair Housing Act, as codified in 42 USC 45, “prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of dwellings and in other housing-related activities on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.”[2] For decades, HUD has interpreted this language to prohibit not just overtly discriminatory practices, but also those “with an unjustified discriminatory effect, regardless of whether there was an intent to discriminate.”[3]  The eleven circuits that have addressed the issue have all concurred, but, over the years, have developed slightly different “methodolog[ies] of proving a claim of discriminatory effects liability.”[4]  In order to establish uniformity in interpretation and application of discriminatory effects liability,[5] HUD issued the new rule entitled “Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Discrimination Effects Standard” (the “Rule”).[6] Read More ›

Ask the Blogger

Type the following characters: tango, sierra, tango, niner

Do you have a topic that you would like discussed in a future blog article? Please let us know. If you have a confidential question regarding a blog article, please feel free to contact the article's author directly, or let us know if you would like for someone to contact you directly.

Attorney Spotlight

William T. Repasky practices with the Litigation Department at Frost Brown Todd. He focuses on lending and commercial services; banking litigation and financial institutions.