EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT SERIES

In challenging the school’s argument in its Statement of Interest, the CFPB points to the ECOA language that prohibits discrimination “with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction.” Based on this language, the CFPB argues that “even where loan terms are not themselves unfair or predatory, a plaintiff may still proceed with a discriminatory targeting claim because, contrary to Defendants’ suggestion otherwise, ECOA covers every aspect of a credit transaction, not just the loan terms in the four corners of the contract.” According to the CFPB, by alleging “that HIS misrepresented program requirements-and consequently, the length, and therefore the cost of the program-to convince students to take out credit to pay for tuition for the nursing program,” the plaintiffs had identified ‘an aspect of a credit transaction’ with respect to which HCI discriminatorily targeted them and have accordingly stated a claim under the ECOA.” In its motion to dismiss, the school argues that “laintiffs fail to specify any aspect of any credit transaction that they allege is discriminatory based on race (or any other protected class under the ) and fail to identify any specific loan term that they allege was unfair or predatory, let alone unfair or predatory based on race.” A subclass of Black students allege that the school “intentionally used marketing, advertising, and recruiting techniques to target their nursing program to individuals on the basis of their race, with the understanding that such individuals were highly likely to require an extension of credit in order to pay for HCI’s nursing program.” They allege that the school caused students to apply for and take out credit in the form of federal and private student loans, including retail installment contracts.” According to the plaintiffs, the school engaged in “reverse redlining” by targeting the subclass for “an illusory program.” Health Career Institute LLC, the plaintiffs are students at a for-profit nursing school who allege that the school engaged in various unfair and deceptive practices and other unlawful conduct in connection with enrolling students in and operating its “functionally valueless” nursing program. Of course, both are winning situations for the credit card company.The CFPB has filed a Statement of Interest in a case pending before a Florida federal district court in which the plaintiffs allege that the defendant engaged in discriminatory targeting in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Either they’re shopaholics who are madly in love with their credits cards, or their shopaholics madly in love with their husband’s credit cards. Today, there are two kinds of ways today’s credit card ads handle women, as Lisa Wade at The Society Pages points out.

According to a study by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, women pay a half a point higher interest rate than men. It was the first bank in the United States to be operated by women and for women, at a time when its founders said that women were given short shrift by other banks.īut despite the law, a report from 2012 found that women still pay more for credit cards. Mello, as Eric Pace reported in the New York Times obituary for Mello: The bank, a creation of the feminist movement, was established in April 1975. And, finally, in 1974-forty years ago this year-the Senate passed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which made it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their gender, race, religion and national origin.Ī year later, in 1975, the first women’s bank was opened by Judy H.

EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT SERIES

Forty years ago, any woman applying for a credit card could be asked a barrage of questions: Was she married? Did she plan to have children? Many banks required single, divorced or widowed women to bring a man along with them to cosign for a credit card, and some discounted the wages of women by as much as 50 percent when calculating their credit card limits.Īs women and minorities pushed for equal civil rights in various arenas, credit cards became the focus of a series of hearings in which women documented the discrimination they faced.

Equal credit opportunity act