An official website of the United States government
Share This Page:
A bank supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) appealed to the Ombudsman the supervisory office’s (SO) determination that the OCC has information suggesting that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FH Act). The bank also appealed the SO’s determination that the OCC has reason to believe that the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of discouraging or denying applications for credit on the basis of race, color, or national origin in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). Under Executive Order 12892 and ECOA, the OCC is required to notify the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) of this information.1
The appeal disagrees with the OCC’s decision to make a referral to the HUD and DOJ. The appeal contends that the OCC’s determination is based on a flawed application of relevant supervisory standards and applicable law. The appeal asserts that evidence indicates the bank provided equal access to credit in majority-minority census tracts and did not “refuse” to make loans in majority-minority census tracts. The appeal also asserts that the OCC’s peer comparisons are irrelevant and that the results of statistical comparisons do not meet the redlining standard. Additionally, the appeal asserts that the bank’s branch locations do not suggest or indicate intentional discrimination, and that there is no information suggesting or indicating that the bank’s marketing excludes the suspected redlined area.
The Ombudsman conducted a comprehensive review using Executive Order 12892, “Leadership and Coordination of Fair Housing in Federal Programs: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (January 17, 1994), and 15 USC 1691e(g), “Civil Liability,” of ECOA as the primary supervisory standards. The “Memorandum: Identifying Lender Practices That May Form the Basis of a Pattern or Practice Referral to the Department of Justice” (1996), the “Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending” (April 15, 1994), and the “Fair Lending” booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook (January 2023) were secondary supervisory standards.
At this juncture, the OCC is only required to have facts or information suggesting a possible pattern or practice of violations of the FH Act pursuant to Executive Order 12892 and reason to believe the bank engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of ECOA pursuant to 15 USC 1691e(g). The OCC is not required to meet the evidentiary standards that would be applicable in a court of law. Further, because the DOJ conducts its own investigation before determining whether to pursue litigation, the DOJ directs regulatory agencies that they do not need to have overwhelming proof of an extensive pattern or practice of discrimination before making a referral.
The Ombudsman concurred with the SO’s decision to refer this matter to the HUD and DOJ. Pursuant to Executive Order 12892, the OCC is required to notify the HUD and DOJ when it has facts or information suggesting the bank engaged in violations of the FH Act and that such facts or information indicate a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of the FH Act. Under ECOA, the OCC must refer matters to the DOJ when it has reason to believe a lender has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of ECOA.
