the attorney general's 2011 annual report to congress pursuant to

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S

2011 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS

PURSUANT TO THE

EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT

AMENDMENTS OF 1976

Submitted by

Thomas E. Perez

Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Division

March 2012

This report is submitted pursuant to Section 1691f of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA),

as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq., regarding the activities of the Department of Justice (DOJ

or the Department) under the statute, which is enforced by the Department’s Civil Rights

Division. This report covers the 2011 calendar year and includes information about all of the

Division’s fair lending work, including its activities under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), as

amended, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq., and the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), as

amended, 50 U.S.C. App. § 501 et seq.

I. INTRODUCTION

In the wake of the housing and foreclosure

crisis, the President and the Attorney

General have made fair lending

enforcement a top priority. In early 2010,

the Attorney General established a

dedicated Fair Lending Unit in the Civil

Rights Division’s Housing and Civil

Enforcement Section. In 2011, the Division

produced unprecedented results, filing a

record eight lending-related federal lawsuits

and obtaining eight settlements providing

for more than $350 million in relief to the

victims of illegal lending practices. This

successful year of fair lending enforcement is the result of the Division’s sustained efforts

throughout 2009 and 2010 to prioritize fair lending enforcement and to strengthen its

relationships with governmental and community partners across the country. Almost all of the

Division’s lending cases in 2011 involved collaborative work with other government agencies

and other offices within the Department of Justice. Highlights from 2011 include:

 Breaking New Ground with the Largest Fair Lending Case in DOJ History. The

Division filed and settled its largest fair lending lawsuit ever, obtaining $335 million in

monetary relief for more than 200,000 victims of discrimination. The Division’s lawsuit

against Countrywide Financial Corporation alleged that, for more than four years during

the height of the mortgage boom, Countrywide systematically discriminated against

qualified Hispanic and African-American borrowers in violation of ECOA and the FHA.

The lawsuit alleged – for the first time ever by the Department – that the mortgage lender

“steered” Hispanic and African-American borrowers by systematically placing them in

subprime loans, while placing white borrowers with similar creditworthiness in prime

loans.

 Standing Up for Servicemembers against Wrongful Foreclosure. The Division

obtained more than $20 million in financial compensation for victims in two cases

involving alleged violations of the SCRA by servicers that foreclosed on active duty

servicemembers without a court order. The Division also entered into an out-of-court

The Division has achieved

extraordinary results. In the

approximately 24 months since the

Fair Lending Unit was established, the

Division has either filed or resolved

16 lending matters. In the 16-year

period from 1993 through 2008, the

Division filed or resolved only 37

lending matters (25 in the period from

1993-2000 and 12 from 2001-2008),

or a little more than 2 cases per year.

settlement with a major credit card lender to resolve claims that it charged active duty

servicemembers interest in excess of six percent, in violation of their rights under the Act.

 Fighting Discrimination against Women on Maternity Leave. In its first-ever

discrimination case involving sex and familial status discrimination in mortgage

insurance, the Division sued the nation’s largest mortgage insurance company and two of

its underwriters for requiring women on paid maternity leave to return to work before the

company would agree to insure their mortgages, in violation of the FHA.

 Strengthening Partnerships with Other Agencies. The Division continued to

strengthen its relationships with the federal banking regulators, including the new

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and also with the Department of Housing and

Urban Development and the Federal Trade Commission. These agencies referred 109

matters to DOJ between 2009 and 2011. Nearly half of those referrals (55) involved race

or national origin discrimination – more than the previous eight years combined.

No one case can rectify the multitude of unlawful practices in the housing and lending market

that contributed to the nationwide housing and foreclosure crisis, but the Division’s fair lending

work represents an important piece of the Department’s comprehensive efforts to address it. As

the 2011 enforcement record illustrates, the Division’s Fair Lending Unit uses every possible

tool to address the range of abuses seen in the market, in both mortgage and non-mortgage

lending.

The Division anticipates another strong year in 2012, as it continues working with a wide range

of partners to investigate, litigate, and resolve cases involving important issues of fair and equal

access to credit. This year the Division already has filed settlements under the Servicemembers

Civil Relief Act with the nation’s five largest servicers. In addition, six additional lawsuits – five

lending discrimination and one servicemember lending case – have been authorized and are in

various stages of pre-suit negotiations.

II. LENDING DISCRIMINATION ENFORCEMENT UNDER ECOA AND THE FHA

The Division has authority to enforce ECOA and the FHA on its own or upon referral from

another agency. ECOA prohibits creditors from discriminating against credit applicants on the

basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, because an applicant

receives income from a public assistance program, or because an applicant has in good faith

exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The FHA prohibits

discrimination in home mortgage loans, home improvement loans, and other home credit

transactions because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability. In

cases involving discrimination in mortgage loans or home improvement loans, the Division may

file suit under both ECOA and the FHA.

The Division has authority under both statutes to challenge a pattern or practice of discriminatory

conduct, and the Division’s Fair Lending Unit focuses on the range of abuses seen in the market,

from traditional access to credit issues such as redlining, to emerging issues involving pricing

discrimination, steering, reverse redlining, and mortgage insurance discrimination. The Fair

Lending Unit also investigates abuses in non-mortgage lending, including discrimination

involved in unsecured consumer loans, auto loans, student loans, business loans, and credit card

products. Cases and investigations brought by the Fair Lending Unit in 2011 are described in

detail below.

In addition to these cases, in 2011 the Division’s Disability Rights Section reached a settlement

agreement under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act with Wells Fargo & Company

to ensure equal access for individuals with disabilities to Wells Fargo’s services nationwide,

including its nearly 10,000 retail banking, brokerage and mortgage stores, over 12,000 ATMs,

and its telephone and website services. Wells Fargo also agreed to pay up to $16 million to

compensate aggrieved individuals.

Landmark Fair Lending Case: United States v. Countrywide

On December 21, 2011, the Division filed and settled, for $335 million in monetary relief for

victims of discrimination, its largest fair lending lawsuit ever. The complaint in United States v.

Countrywide Financial

Corporation, et al. (C.D.

Cal.), alleged discrimination

in residential mortgage

lending on the basis of race,

national origin, and marital

status by Countrywide

Financial Corporation and its

subsidiaries Countrywide

Home Loans and

Countrywide Bank.

The Division alleged that

Countrywide’s systemic

discrimination violated both

ECOA and the FHA, and that

it persisted from 2004 to

2008, when Countrywide was

the largest residential

mortgage lender in the

country. The Division alleged that Countrywide discriminated against more than 12,000

qualified Hispanic and African-American wholesale borrowers across the country by

systematically placing those borrowers into subprime loans, while placing non-Hispanic white

borrowers with similar creditworthiness into prime loans. As a result of being placed in the more

expensive subprime loans, thousands of Hispanic and African-American borrowers were

exposed to greater risk of default and foreclosure. This marks the first time that DOJ has

obtained relief for qualified borrowers who were steered into subprime loans based on race or

national origin. The Division also alleged that Countrywide discriminated against more than

Attorney General Holder speaks at the December 21, 2011, press conference

announcing the Countrywide settlement. He is joined by Department of Housing and

Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, U.S. Attorney for the Central District

of California André Birotte Jr., and Federal Reserve Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin.

200,000 Hispanic and African-American borrowers by systematically charging higher

discretionary fees and markups to those borrowers than to white borrowers, and that it

discriminated on the basis of marital status by encouraging non-applicant spouses to forfeit their

property rights when their spouse obtained a Countrywide loan.

The $335 million settlement fund

will be distributed to victims of

Countrywide’s discrimination by

an independent settlement

administrator, after the

Department determines the

appropriate allocation of damages.

The consent order, which was

entered on December 28, 2011,

also requires that if Countrywide

reenters the business of home

mortgage lending, it must adopt

fair lending policies and

procedures that will be subject to

review by the Division.

The Countrywide case resulted

from referrals by two federal

partner agencies – the Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Office of Thrift Supervision. The Division

also worked collaboratively on this matter with an important state partner – the Illinois Attorney

General’s Office.

Pricing Discrimination: Charging Borrowers More Because of Their Race or National

Origin

The Division filed and resolved two additional pricing discrimination cases in 2011, both against

smaller lending institutions.

Pricing Discrimination Against Hispanic Borrowers in Unsecured Consumer Loans. In United

States v. Nixon State Bank (W.D. Tex.), the Division alleged that the bank charged higher prices

on unsecured consumer loans made to Hispanic borrowers than to non-Hispanic borrowers

because of their national origin. The consent order, entered on June 21, 2011, requires Nixon to

revise its new uniform rate matrices for pricing unsecured consumer and other loans offered by

the bank to ensure that the price charged for its loans is set in a non-discriminatory manner. The

settlement also requires the bank to pay nearly $100,000 to Hispanic victims of discrimination;

to monitor its loans for potential disparities based on national origin; and to provide equal credit

opportunity training to its employees. This case was referred by the Federal Deposit Insurance

This map shows in red the jurisdictions -- 41 States and the District of Columbia –

with substantial concentrations of aggrieved persons in the Countrywide case.

Corporation under ECOA and was the Department’s first pricing discrimination case involving

unsecured consumer loans in more than 10 years.

Pricing Discrimination Against Minority Borrowers in Home Mortgage Loans. In United States

v. C&F Mortgage Corporation (E.D. Va.), the Division challenged C&F’s policy of giving its

employees wide discretion in setting interest rate markups (overages) and discounts (underages)

on home mortgage loans, without establishing objective guidelines. The Division alleged that

the policy had a disparate impact on African-American and Hispanic borrowers, who paid more

for their mortgage loans than comparable white borrowers, in violation of ECOA and the FHA.

The consent order, entered on October 4, 2011, requires C&F to pay $140,000 to African-

American and Hispanic victims of discrimination; to implement and maintain newly developed

uniform policies for all aspects of its loan pricing; and to phase out the practice of charging

overages to home mortgage borrowers. This case was referred by the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation under ECOA and the FHA.

Redlining: Failing to Provide Services to Residents of Minority Neighborhoods on an

Equal Basis as White Neighborhoods

The Division in 2011 also brought two cases

alleging redlining in majority-minority areas of

two Midwestern cities. In a redlining case, a

lender does not provide its lending services on an

equal basis in a neighborhood because of the race,

color, or national origin of the people who live in

the neighborhood, thereby denying residents of

those communities equal access to residential,

consumer, or small business credit.

Redlining in Detroit. In United States v. Citizens

Republic Bancorp, Inc. (E.D. Mich.), the Division

alleged that Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc.

(CRBC), as the successor to Republic Bank, and

Citizens Bank failed to provide home mortgage

lending services to the residents of majority

African-American neighborhoods on an equal

basis as those services were provided to residents

of predominantly white neighborhoods in the

Detroit metropolitan area. The Division obtained

a settlement agreement on June 23, 2011,

requiring CRBC and Citizens Bank to open a loan

production office in an African-American

neighborhood in the City of Detroit and to hire

two community lenders there. It also requires

CRBC to invest in the formerly redlined majority

African-American areas of Wayne County by

This map shows the area Citizens Bank identified for

determining whether it was serving its community under the

Community Reinvestment Act, so that it could avoid serving

the predominantly African-American neighborhoods in

Wayne County.

providing $1.5 million in a special financing program to increase the amount of credit the bank

extends in those areas; by partnering with the City of Detroit to provide $1.625 million in

matching grants of up to $5,000 to existing homeowners for exterior improvements; and by

spending $500,000 for advertising, marketing, and consumer financial education targeted to

those areas. This case, brought under ECOA and the FHA, was referred by the Board of

Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Redlining in St. Louis. In United States

v. Midwest BankCentre (E.D. Mo.), the

Division alleged that the bank failed to

provide its home mortgage lending

services to residents of majority

African-American neighborhoods on an

equal basis as it provided those services

to residents of predominantly white

neighborhoods in the Missouri portion

of the St. Louis metropolitan area.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement,

entered on June 28, 2011, Midwest will

open a full-service branch in an

African-American neighborhood and

invest in the formerly redlined areas of

St. Louis by providing $900,000 in a

special financing program to increase

the amount of credit the bank extends in

those areas; by spending $300,000 for

consumer education and credit repair

programs; and by spending $250,000

for outreach to potential customers and

promotion of their products and

services. The case was brought under

ECOA and the FHA and was originally

brought to the Department’s attention by

the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing

Opportunities Council and referred by the

Board of Governors of the Federal

Reserve System.

Discrimination against Women on Paid Maternity Leave

In United States v. Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. (W.D. Pa.), the Division made history

when it sued the nation’s largest mortgage insurance company and two of its underwriters for

discrimination on the basis of sex and familial status when they required women on paid

maternity leave to return to work before the company would agree to insure their mortgages.

The case was referred by the Department of Housing and Urban Development under the FHA

The dots on this map shows loans made by Midwest from 2004-2008.

Areas with higher percentages of African-American population are

shaded, with red indicating the highest. The map illustrates the lack of

loans by Midwest in majority African-American neighborhoods.

after it received and investigated a complaint from a homeowner. The case was filed on July 5,

2011, and is currently in litigation.

Discrimination in Auto Lending

The Division continues its litigation in an auto lending case previously described in the Attorney

General’s 2009 and 2010 ECOA reports. The Division’s complaint in United States v. Union

Auto Sales, et al. (C.D. Cal.) asserted a disparate-impact discrimination claim under ECOA. The

district court dismissed the complaint as insufficient under two recent Supreme Court cases –

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

The Division has appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral

argument on February 10, 2012. The decision should clarify the proper legal standard for

evaluating lending discrimination complaints filed in court.

Pending Discrimination Investigations

In addition to the cases described above, the Division ended the year with 30 open fair lending

investigations and five authorized lawsuits. These enforcement efforts continue to focus on the

following forms of lending discrimination:

 Discrimination in the underwriting or

pricing of loans, such as discretionary

markups and fees;

 Redlining through the failure to provide

equal lending services to minority

neighborhoods or reverse redlining through

the targeting of minority communities for

predatory loans;

 Steering qualified minority borrowers into

less favorable loans; and

 Marital status, sex, and age discrimination in lending.

Of the 30 pending investigations, 21 were opened in 2011, including:

 Fourteen pricing discrimination investigations (12 based on referrals), including two

opened pursuant to DOJ’s independent pattern-or-practice authority to determine

whether lenders adversely considered the fact that borrowers resided on an Indian

reservation when underwriting or pricing auto loans;

 Three redlining investigations (one based on a referral);

For the first time in its history, the

Department in 2011 brought a

case under the FHA to address

discrimination against women on

paid maternity leave who were

prevented from refinancing their

mortgages. The Fair Lending Unit

continues to investigate

allegations of sex discrimination

and discrimination based on

familial status.

 One investigation of allegations that a bank marketed its lending services in a manner that

discriminates based on national origin (based on a referral);

 One reverse redlining investigation, which the Division is conducting jointly with a state

attorney general, to determine whether a “buy here, pay here” car dealership targeted

African-American used auto purchasers with abusive lending practices;

 One reverse redlining and steering investigation into whether African-American and

Hispanic borrowers were being steered into abusive loan products; and

 One underwriting investigation (based on a referral), into whether a major lender’s

maternity leave policy discriminated against women.

The investigations based on referrals are detailed in the charts immediately following Section

VII of this report.

The Division expects that in 2012, many of these pending investigations, particularly those in

which lawsuits have been authorized, will likely result in contested litigation or settlements.

III. SERVICEMEMBERS’ LENDING ENFORCEMENT

The Civil Rights Division enforces several laws designed to protect the rights of members of the

military, including the SCRA. The SCRA postpones, suspends, terminates, or reduces the

amount of certain consumer debt obligations for active duty members of the armed forces, so that

they can focus their full attention on their military responsibilities without adverse consequences

for themselves or their families. Among these protections is (1) a prohibition on foreclosure of a

servicemember’s property without first getting approval from the court if the servicemember

obtained the mortgage prior to entering military service, and (2) the right for a servicemember to

have his or her interest rate lowered to six percent on debt that was acquired before entering

military service.

Enforcing these rights is a priority of the Division. Members of the military who have made

“We will continue to aggressively enforce the

law to protect all homeowners from unlawful

lending practices, and to protect the rights of

servicemembers who put their lives on the line

on our behalf. They have our backs, and they

need to know that we have theirs.”

-Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez

at Fort Knox

Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez speaks to

soldiers at Fort Knox last Fall. (Photo courtesy of Fort

Knox Garrison Public Affairs.)

great personal sacrifices on behalf of this country should not be required to transition to civilian

life only to find their credit ruined and their homes sold off because of their willingness to serve

in the armed forces.

Wrongful Foreclosure Cases

On May 26, 2011, the Division filed and resolved two SCRA wrongful foreclosure cases,

including a case against Bank of America – the largest SCRA case in DOJ history.

Bank of America Case. In United States v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP f/k/a Countrywide

Home Loans Servicing, LP (C.D. Cal.), the Division alleged that the mortgage servicer (a Bank

of America subsidiary) foreclosed without court orders on the pre-service residential mortgages

of individuals who were in military service or were otherwise protected by the SCRA in states

that allowed for non-judicial foreclosure, and that the bank failed to check consistently for the

military status of borrowers prior to foreclosure.

Under the consent order, entered on May 31, 2011, Bank of America is in the process of paying

$20 million to 157 servicemembers who were illegally foreclosed on between 2006 and the

middle of 2009, with each servicemember receiving a minimum of $116,785 plus compensation

for any equity lost due to the bank’s alleged violation of the SCRA. The consent order also

requires Bank of America to compensate any additional victims wrongfully foreclosed on from

mid-2009 through December 31, 2010, at the same level as the already-identified victims. In

addition, Bank of America will not pursue any remaining amounts owing under the mortgages;

will take steps to remedy negative credit reporting directly resulting from the foreclosures of

affected servicemembers’ loans; and will implement enhanced measures including monitoring,

training, and checking loans against the Defense Department’s Defense Manpower Data Center’s

database during the foreclosure process. Finally, Bank of America must perform an audit of its

compliance with the provision of the SCRA limiting the interest rate to six percent on

mortgages.

The Division initiated the investigation in this case based on a referral from the United States

Marine Corps on behalf of a servicemember, deployed to Iraq at the time, whose home Bank of

America was scheduled to sell at a trustee’s sale in

three days despite having received a copy of his

military orders. The Department of Defense

provided critical assistance in identifying the

servicemembers whose rights were violated.

Saxon Case. In United States v. Saxon Mortgage

Services, Inc. (N.D. Tex), the Division alleged that

Saxon foreclosed without court orders on the pre-

service residential mortgages of individuals who

were protected by the SCRA, and that Saxon consistently failed to check the military status of

borrowers prior to foreclosure. Under the consent order, Saxon agreed to pay $2.35 million to 18

servicemembers on whose mortgages were unlawfully foreclosed. Each victim will receive

The Department secured more

than $22 million in relief for the

175 servicemembers whose

homes were illegally foreclosed

on by a Bank of America

subsidiary or Saxon Mortgage

Services.

$130,356 in monetary damages. The consent order also requires Saxon to compensate any

additional servicemembers foreclosed on from mid-2009 through December 31, 2010. In

addition, Saxon will not pursue any remaining amounts owed under the mortgages; will take

steps to remedy negative credit reporting directly resulting from the foreclosures of affected

servicemembers’ loans; and will implement enhanced measures including monitoring, training,

and checking loans against the Defense Manpower Data Center’s database during the foreclosure

process. The Division initiated this case in response to an inquiry from counsel for Sergeant

James Hurley of the United States Army, who resolved his claims against Saxon earlier in 2011

in a confidential settlement.

Charging Interest in Excess of Six Percent

In 2011, the Division also resolved the United States’ claims that Bank of America violated the

SCRA by failing to lower the interest rate on servicemembers’ credit card loans to six percent, or

to maintain the reduced interest rate through the entire period of military service, after those

servicemembers sent in military orders and requested a reduction in the interest rate. On May

26, 2011, the same day the Division resolved the wrongful foreclosure claims, the Division

executed a memorandum of agreement with the bank requiring that it provide $86,023 to

compensate nine servicemembers who appeared to have been charged interest in excess of six

percent on their credit card loans. The Bank will also make changes to its policies and

procedures to ensure future compliance with the SCRA’s six-percent rule, including training

employees, verifying active duty information with the Defense Manpower Data Center’s

database before raising a servicemember’s credit card interest rate, and designating a call-in

telephone number for servicemembers with questions about SCRA benefits.

2012 Settlements

The 2011 Bank of America and Saxon

consent orders provided the templates for

agreements the Division reached in February

2012 with Bank of America, JPMorgan

Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Company,

Citigroup Inc., and Ally Financial, Inc.

(formerly GMAC). Under those agreements,

the nation’s five largest mortgage loan

servicers will conduct reviews to determine

whether any servicemembers were foreclosed

on either judicially or non-judicially in

violation of the SCRA since 2006, and

whether servicemembers were unlawfully charged interest in excess of six percent on their

mortgages since 2008. As a result of these settlements, when combined with the Division’s

settlements with Bank of America and Saxon covering non-judicial foreclosures filed last year,

the vast majority of all foreclosures against servicemembers will be subject to court ordered

review.

The vast majority of all foreclosures against servicemembers will

soon be subject to court ordered review. (Photo courtesy of

defenseimagery.mil

Foreclosure victims identified through these reviews by the nation’s five largest mortgage

servicers will be compensated a minimum of $116,785 each plus any lost equity with interest,

and victims of violations of the SCRA six-percent rule identified through these reviews will be

compensated by the amount wrongfully charged in excess of six percent, plus triple the amount

refunded, or $500, whichever is larger.

These agreements were incorporated into an historic

mortgage servicer settlement between the United States and 49 state attorneys general and these

five servicers, which provides for $25 billion in relief based on the servicers’ illegal mortgage

loan servicing practices. The financial compensation to servicemembers is in addition to the $25

billion settlement.

IV. COLLABORATION WITH FEDERAL AND STATE PARTNERS

The Division’s ability to bring a record number of enforcement actions is a direct result of close

collaboration with federal and state partners. Almost all of the Division’s lending discrimination

cases in 2011 involved collaborative work with other government agencies and other offices

within the Department, including the U.S. Attorneys’ offices. For example, the Division opened

a joint investigation with the Department of Housing and Urban Development on a pricing

discrimination matter that was originally referred by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

In addition, several joint or parallel investigations that originated in prior years remained

ongoing in 2011.

The Division’s collaborative work was bolstered in

July 2011 by the addition of the Consumer Financial

Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB is a critical

partner, which has supervisory and enforcement

authority under ECOA over all banking institutions

with assets of more than $10 billion, as well as

certain non-bank lenders. In addition, the Dodd-

Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection

Act of 2010 granted rulemaking authority under

ECOA to the CFPB.

Much of the Division’s enforcement is done through the President’s Financial Fraud

Enforcement Task Force, particularly its Non-Discrimination Working Group, which is co-

chaired by the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. The Task Force, led by Attorney

General Holder, was designed to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to

investigate and prosecute illegal financial activity. The Task Force includes representatives from

the highest levels at the Department, federal law enforcement agencies, regulatory authorities,

inspectors general, state attorneys general, and local law enforcement who, working together,

To ensure consistency with an earlier settlement, JP Morgan Chase will provide any servicemember who was a

victim of a wrongful foreclosure as a result of a violation of the SCRA either (1) his or her home free and clear of

any debt plus compensation for additional harm, or (2) the cash equivalent of the full value the home at the time of

sale plus compensation for additional harm. In addition, JP Morgan Chase had already agreed to compensate

servicemembers charged interest in excess of six percent on their mortgage through the private settlement approved

by the District of South Carolina on January 10, 2012.

identify synergies between mortgage fraud and lending discrimination enforcement activities in

order to increase effective enforcement in both areas. The Division also participates in the

Federal Interagency Fair Lending Task Force with federal regulatory agencies empowered to

refer matters to DOJ and to discuss and coordinate fair lending enforcement activities. As

illustrated below, much of that work has resulted in a steady increase of referrals from those

agencies, particularly referrals of matters involving race or national origin discrimination.

The Division is also working closely with state attorneys general. The Countrywide case was

done in coordination with the Illinois Attorney

General’s office and two of the Division’s current

active investigations are collaborations with state

attorneys general. In its friend-of-the-court brief

in USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Pennsylvania

Human Rights Commission (E.D. Pa.), the

Division stated the importance of state fair lending

enforcement by arguing that federal banking law

does not preempt state agencies enforcing state

fair housing laws from investigating a complaint

of lending discrimination by a federally chartered

bank.

Finally, Division representatives, led by the Assistant Attorney General, participated in 2011 in

numerous conferences, training programs, and meetings involving lenders, enforcement

agencies, advocacy and consumer groups, and others interested in fair lending throughout the

country, in order to inform critical stakeholders about the Division’s enforcement policies and

activities. The Division will continue these efforts in 2012 in order to strengthen and improve its

enforcement of fair lending protections.

V. LENDING DISCRIMINATION REFERRALS FROM OTHER FEDERAL

AGENCIES

Under ECOA, the bank

regulatory agencies and the

CFPB are required to refer

matters to the Department when

they have reason to believe a

lender has engaged in a pattern or

practice of discrimination.

Referrals are also made under

ECOA by the FTC, and under the

FHA by HUD. In the past three

years, the Division has received

an unprecedented number of referrals from our federal partners. From 2009-2011, the bank

regulatory agencies, the FTC, and HUD referred to DOJ a total of 109 matters involving a

potential pattern or practice of lending discrimination. Fifty-five of the 109 matters involved

Many Partners, Many Acronyms

CFPB - Consumer Finance Protection Bureau

FDIC - Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

FRB - Federal Reserve Board

OTS - Office of Thrift Supervision

OCC - Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

NCUA - National Credit Union Administration

FTC - Federal Trade Commission

HUD - Dep’t of Housing and Urban Development

In USAA Federal Savings Bank v.

Pennsylvania Human Rights

Commission, the Division argued

that a state agency certified by the

Department of Housing and Urban

Development to enforce a state fair

housing law substantially

equivalent to the FHA is authorized

under the FHA to investigate a

lending discrimination complaint.

race or national origin discrimination, a combined total that is far higher than the 30 race and

national origin discrimination referrals the Division received from 2001-2008. All six of the

lending (or mortgage insurance) discrimination cases filed by the Division in 2011 and described

in Section II were the subject of referrals from the federal bank regulatory agencies or HUD.

When the Division receives a referral, it must determine whether to file a lawsuit in federal court

or return the matter to the regulator for administrative enforcement. Shortly after the creation of

the new Fair Lending Unit two years ago, and in response to feedback from industry groups,

lenders, and regulatory agencies, the Division made it a priority to review and make an initial

decision within 90 days of receiving a complete referral either to defer for administrative

enforcement or open a DOJ investigation for further

review. In 2011, the Division met this internal goal for all

but one referral, for which an initial decision was made in

92 days. It was a priority for the Division to evaluate

referrals as quickly as possible: the average time required

for the initial decision to defer or open an investigation

upon referral in 2011 was 50 days.

Factors Considered by DOJ When Evaluating Referrals

In 1996, upon the recommendation of the General Accounting Office, DOJ provided guidance to

the federal bank regulatory agencies on pattern-or-practice referrals. That guidance described

the factors that DOJ would consider in determining which matters it would return to the agency

for administrative resolution and which it would pursue for potential litigation.

While numerous factors are considered, referrals that are most likely to be returned generally

have the following characteristics:

 The practice has ceased and there is little chance that it will be repeated;

 The violation may have been accidental or arose from ignorance of the law’s more

technical requirements, such as spousal signature violations and minor price breaks for

certain age groups not entitled to preferential treatment; and

 There either were few potential victims or de minimis harm to any potential victims.

Referrals that would likely be considered for litigation by the Department are referrals that do

not meet the criteria set forth above, and have one or more of the following characteristics:

 The practice is serious in terms of its potential for either financial or emotional harm to

members of protected classes (for example, discrimination in underwriting, pricing, or

provision of lender services);

 The practice is not likely to cease without court action;

In 2011, the average time

the Division required to

make an initial decision to

defer or open an

investigation based on a

referral was 50 days.

 The protected class members harmed by the practice cannot be fully compensated

without court action;

 Damages for victims, beyond out-of-pocket losses, are necessary to deter the lender (or

others like it) from treating the cost of detection as a cost of doing business; or

 The agency believes the practice to be sufficiently common in the lending industry, or

raises an important issue, so as to require action to deter lenders.

2001-2011 Lending Discrimination Referrals to DOJ

2011 Lending Discrimination Referrals to DOJ

In 2011, DOJ received 29

fair lending referrals

involving potential lending

discrimination claims from

the bank regulatory

agencies and HUD.

Referrals were made by all

agencies except the CFPB,

which did not have the

authority to examine the

depository institutions

under its supervision until

July 21, 2011, and the

NCUA.

This bar chart

compares all referrals

with referrals involving

race or national origin

discrimination from

2001 to 2011. More

information can be

found in the last chart

following Section VII of

this report.

FDIC - 14

Referrals

FED - 7

Referrals

OTS - 4

Referrals

OCC - 1

Referral

HUD - 1

Referral

FTC - 2

Referrals

This pie chart shows the number of referrals made by each agency in 2011.

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

All Referrals

Race/Nat'l Origin

4 4

For the second year in a row, more than one-half of these referrals (18) involved discrimination

based on race or national origin.

Overall, the 2011 referrals included the following types of alleged discrimination:

 18 involving race or national origin;

 5 involving marital status;

 4 involving age;

 4 involving sex;

 1 involving source of income;

 1 involving disability; and

 1 involving familial status.

As set forth in charts immediately following Section VII of this report, the 2011 referrals

involved a wide range of discriminatory conduct and various types of credit. The most

common issue in these referrals continues to be pricing discrimination based on race or

national origin. In 2011, the Division received a notable number of pricing discrimination

referrals involving non-mortgage loans, including three referrals involving unsecured

consumer loan pricing discrimination from the FDIC, one involving student loan pricing

discrimination from the FDIC, and one involving auto loan pricing discrimination from the

FRB. In addition, one referral from the FDIC and one from the OTS involved pricing

discrimination in consumer loans based on sex. The Division also received in 2011 its first

referral involving discrimination against female borrowers in the mortgage underwriting

process, from the FRB.

Several referrals involved multiple protected classes; therefore, the number of referrals by protected class

categories totals more than 29.

As discussed above, we also received a case from HUD involving discrimination in mortgage insurance against

female borrowers on maternity leave that was referred as an election case under the FHA.

FDIC - 10

Referrals

FED - 2

Referrals

OTS - 3

Referrals

OCC - 1

Referral

FTC - 2

Referrals

This pie chart shows the number

of referrals involving race or

national origin discrimination

made by each agency in 2011.

At the end of 2011, the Division continued to investigate 11 referrals received in prior

years: three each from the FDIC and the Fed, two each from the OTS and the OCC, and

one from HUD. Ten of these ongoing investigations involved race and national origin

discrimination and one involved discrimination based on sex.

The Division returned 18 of the 2011 referrals to the referring agency for administrative

enforcement. For each of the referrals returned to the agencies, the Division evaluated the facts

and circumstances of the matter in light of the factors described above. Key factors for returning

a referral to the bank agency during 2011 included: the nature of the violation; whether the bank

had revised the relevant lending policies and practices; whether the bank had taken, or expressed

willingness to take, appropriate corrective action for any persons who were aggrieved by the

discriminatory policy; and the number of and magnitude of any damages for potential victims.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION

In September 2011, the Department transmitted

to Congress a package of legislative proposals

designed to strengthen enforcement of laws that

protect the rights of servicemembers and their

families, as well as other, related civil rights

laws. Title I of the package focuses on fair

lending and contains a number of amendments

to strengthen enforcement of the SCRA, the

FHA, and ECOA, including amendments that

would:

 Grant civil investigative demand

authority to the Attorney General to compel the production of existing documents in

investigations under the SCRA, FHA, and ECOA;

 Double the amount of civil penalties currently available under the SCRA and the FHA;

 Codify the rule that a party seeking a default judgment against a servicemember must

check Department of Defense records to determine whether the servicemember is in

active duty, including in non-judicial foreclosures; and

 Clarify retroactive application of provisions establishing a private right of action and

authority of the Attorney General to enforce the SCRA.

The Department urges Congress to act on these proposals.

VII. LOOKING FORWARD

Based on the groundwork laid in 2009-2010, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

produced a successful year of fair lending enforcement in 2011. Enhanced collaborative

relationships with the Division’s federal, state and community partners produced a record

number of lawsuits filed, including landmark cases in the areas of mortgage lending

discrimination and servicemembers’ rights. The flow of referrals from the other agencies and

ongoing outreach should produce continued growth in the Division’s ability to enforce fair

lending laws and to combat lending discrimination.

In the coming year, the Division will continue its efforts to provide justice to those families who

were harmed by discriminatory conduct during the mortgage boom and to hold lenders

responsible for their actions. The Division also will focus on the challenges in the current

market, including access to mortgage credit on fair and non-discriminatory terms, discrimination

in auto lending, and discrimination in student lending. In short, the Division will continue to

seek to ensure that all Americans have equal access to credit and to the opportunity to achieve

the American dream.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez speaks at the Attorney

General’s press conference on December 21, 2011, announcing the

Department’s unprecedented settlement with Countrywide.

“We are using every tool in our law

enforcement arsenal, including some

that were dormant for years, to go after

institutions of all sizes that

discriminated against families solely

because of their race or national

origin.”

-Assistant Attorney General

Thomas E. Perez

Lending Discrimination Referrals by Other Agencies to DOJ

Agency

2011 Referrals

by Protected Class

2011 Referrals Resulting in

Ongoing DOJ Investigations

2011 Referrals Returned to

Agency

Referrals Pending from Prior Years

FDIC

14 Total

10 - race/national

origin

2 - age

1 - marital status

1- sex

6 Total

5 - race/national origin

 2 pricing of

unsecured loans

 redlining

 marketing

 student loan pricing

1 - sex

 unsecured consumer

loan pricing

8 Total (includes 2 referrals

returned in early 2012)

5 - race/ national origin

 mortgage pricing

 unsecured consumer loan

pricing

2 - age

 credit card underwriting

1 - marital status

 refund anticipation loan

underwriting

12 Total

2 filed lawsuits

1 - race/national origin mortgage pricing (United

States v. C&F Mortgage Corp.)

1 - national origin unsecured consumer loan

pricing (United States v. Nixon State Bank)

3 ongoing investigations

2 - race/national origin

 unsecured consumer loan pricing

 mortgage steering & pricing

1 - sex

 unsecured consumer loan pricing

7 returned to agency

 5 - race/national origin

 1 - sex

 1 - age & sex

FRB

7 Total

2 - race/national origin

2 - marital status

1 - age & marital

status

1 - sex & marital

status

1 - sex & familial

status

1 Total

1 – sex & familial status

 mortgage

underwriting

6 Total (includes 1 referral that

was investigated)

2 –race/national origin

 mortgage pricing

 automobile pricing

2 - marital status

 spousal signatures

1 - age & marital status

 underwriting/consumer

loans

1 – sex & marital status

 credit reporting

practices

7 Total

3 filed lawsuits

1 - race redlining (United States v. Citizens Bank)

1 - race redlining (United States v. Midwest

BankCentre)

1 - race/national origin mortgage pricing (United

States v. Countrywide Financial Corp., et al.)

3 ongoing investigations

3 - race/national origin

 mortgage pricing

 redlining

1 returned to agency

1 - race/national origin

Agency

2011 Referrals

by Protected Class

2011 Referrals Resulting in

Ongoing DOJ Investigations

2011 Referrals Returned to

Agency

Referrals Pending from Prior Years

OTS

4 Total

2 - race/national origin

1 - national origin &

age

1 - sex

1 Total

1 - race/national origin

 mortgage pricing

3 Total (includes 1 referral that

was investigated)

1- race/national origin

 mortgage underwriting

1 - national origin & age

 manufactured home

loans underwriting

1 - sex

 consumer loan pricing

5 Total

2 ongoing investigations

2 - race/national origin

 mortgage underwriting

 mortgage pricing

3 returned to agency

 2 - race/national origin

 1- age & sex

OCC

1 Total

1 - race/national origin

0 Total

1 Total

1–race/national origin

 redlining

2 Total

2 ongoing investigations

2 - race/national origin

 mortgage pricing

 mortgage steering

FTC

2 Total

2 - race/national origin

2 Total

2 - race/national origin

 wholesale mortgage

pricing

0 Total

HUD

1 Total

1 - disability & source

of income*

0 Total

2 Total

1 on-going investigation

1 - race/national origin

 mortgage pricing

1 returned to agency

1 - race/national origin

*HUD continued to investigate the underlying complaints after making this pattern-or-practice referral, and the Division deferred taking action while HUD

completed its investigation and attempted conciliation. HUD issued a charge based on those complaints in January 2012. In February 2012, one of the parties

elected to have the case heard in federal court, so the case came to the Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 3612(o). Because this new referral is based on the same

facts, the Division closed the pattern-or-practice referral without further action.

No referrals were made by NCUA or CFPB.

2001-2011 Lending Discrimination Referrals by Other Agencies to DOJ

ALL REFERRALS

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Total

CFPB* 0

FDIC 14 33 21 12 15 29 35 42 29 33 5

268

FRB

OTS*

OCC* 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

NCUA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

FTC

HUD

Total 29 49 31 20 27 34 38 47 29 42 10 356

RACE/NATIONAL

ORIGIN REFERALS

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Total

CFPB* 0

FDIC 10 14 5 2 1 3 1 0 2 1 2

FRB

OTS*

OCC* 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

NCUA

FTC

HUD 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2

Total

*On July 21, 2011, CFPB launched and OTS was merged into OCC.

Dash (“—”) means there is no entry in the ECOA report that year for that particular agency.