U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Issues Final Rule Affirming Use of Disparate Impact to Establish Liability for Violations of the Fair Housing Act

by Dechert LLP

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) issued a final rule (“Rule”) on February 8, 2013, which provides additional support to potential government and private plaintiffs seeking to challenge “facially neutral” practices as violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). At the same time, it declined to provide any meaningful guidance to lenders, insurers or landlords as to practices that would likely be protected from liability. HUD’s action follows a rare action by the Department of Justice to pursue a fair lending claim based on a disparate impact theory. See our DechertOnPoint, U.S. Department of Justice Turns Spotlight on Disparate Impact Claims.

HUD’s action comes at a time when lenders are concerned about the fair lending issues that they will face as they make decisions as to how they will structure their residential mortgage lending activities once those operations become subject in January 2014 to the three-category approach (Qualified Mortgage (“QM”) safe harbor, QM rebuttable presumption, and non-QM) to the ability-to-repay requirements that were recently established by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. See our DechertOnPoint, U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Issues Rules on Qualified Mortgages and Ability to Repay.

HUD’s Rulemaking Proceeding

In issuing the Rule, HUD stressed that its position was supported by decisions of the 11 federal courts of appeals that have considered whether FHA liability can be established based on disparate impact. HUD noted that there were certain differences in the approaches that the courts of appeals have taken in applying a burden-shifting test used in regard to disparate impact claims, and took the position that all parties would benefit from a regulatory statement explaining how disparate impact claims should be evaluated.

HUD’s Rule was strongly opposed by industry representatives, including the American Bankers Association. At the time the Rule was proposed, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear an appeal by the city of Saint Paul, Minnesota which would have challenged the use of disparate impact under the FHA in connection with a challenge by landlords to the city’s housing code enforcement practices. The city then asked the Court to dismiss the case, which the Court did on February 10, 2012. The city explained its action by stating that national civil rights organizations believe that if the city were to prevail before the Court, such a result could completely eliminate disparate impact civil rights enforcement, including under the FHA and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The Supreme Court is currently considering whether to hear a similar challenge by the town of Mount Holly, New Jersey to the use of disparate impact discrimination in an FHA action.

HUD’s Burden-Shifting Formula

The Rule sets out a three-step approach to determining FHA liability.

Step One – Plaintiff Has a Burden to Demonstrate That a Practice Has a Discriminatory Effect

Liability may be established based on a practice’s discriminatory effect, even if the practice was not motivated by a discriminatory intent.

A charging party or plaintiff (“Plaintiff”) has the burden of proving that a challenged practice caused or predictably will cause a discriminatory effect.

A practice has a discriminatory effect where it actually or predictably results in a disparate impact on a group of persons or creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

Step Two – Defendant Must Provide a Legally Sufficient Justification For the Challenged Practice 

Once a Plaintiff demonstrates that a practice has a discriminatory effect, the burden shifts to the responding party or defendant (“Defendant”).

The Defendant must prove that there is a legally sufficient justification for the challenged practice.

Under the Rule, a legally sufficient justification exists where the Defendant demonstrates that the challenged practice is (i) necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests of the Defendant, and (ii) those interests could not be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect.

Step Three – Plaintiff May Still Prevail By Showing That Another Practice With a Less Discriminatory Effect Could Be Used

If the Defendant satisfies its burden under Step Two, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff.

In order to prevail, the Plaintiff must prove that the substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests supporting the challenged practice could be served by another practice with a less discriminatory effect.

Practical Issues

In the preamble to the final Rule, HUD acknowledged receiving numerous comments seeking clarification as to circumstances under which lenders would be subject to or protected from liability. HUD generally rebuffed these requests, indicating in effect that the unique facts and circumstances of each case would be subject to judicial consideration under the three-part balancing test.

As a practical matter, lenders and other parties likely would prefer regulatory assurance that their practices will not be deemed to be in violation of the FHA, rather than potentially having to defend particular practices that do not have a discriminatory intent in an expensive, lengthy court proceeding.

Level of Proof to Demonstrate a Discriminatory Effect

Commenters sought guidance as to what type of impact a practice would have to have in order for it to be deemed to violate the FHA. One commenter suggested defining a disparate impact as a 20 percent difference between relevant groups.

HUD declined to provide the requested guidance. It noted that in order to establish a prima facie case, the Plaintiff must show that members of a protected class are disproportionately burdened by the challenged practice. HUD, however, expressed the view that whether a practice results in a discriminatory effect is a fact-specific inquiry.

What Constitutes a Legally Sufficient Justification

The central issue facing lenders is what will be considered to be a practice that is necessary to achieve one or more substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests of the lender. In this regard, HUD explained that it considers a “substantial” interest to be a core interest of an organization that has a direct relationship to the function of that organization.

HUD noted that commenters requested that the Rule expressly state that increasing profits, minimizing costs, and increasing market share qualify as legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests and that the Rule include tenant screening criteria (such as rental history, credit checks and income verification) as practices that would be presumed to qualify as a legally sufficient justification.

HUD again declined to provide the requested assurances. It stated that the determination of what qualifies as a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest for a given organization is fact-specific and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, it declined to provide examples of what it described as interests that would always qualify as substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests for every Defendant in any context.

In this regard, it should be noted that in the 1994 Joint Policy Statement on Discrimination (“Statement”) issued by ten federal regulatory agencies, including HUD, the agencies noted that a finding of disparate impact could be overcome by a determination that the challenged practice is justified as a “business necessity.” The Statement noted that factors that “may be relevant to a justification could include cost and profitability.”

Application of Discriminatory Effects Liability

HUD noted that commenters raised concerns that the ability-to-repay requirements and qualified residential mortgage provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act may result in disparate impacts because of demographic differences. It also noted that a commenter stated that a lender’s consideration of credit scores or debt-to-income ratios could have a disparate impact because of demographic differences.

HUD downplayed these concerns. It stated that it did not believe that the Rule would encourage lawsuits challenging credit scores, other credit assessment standards, or the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. HUD based this view on the ground that the Rule does not change the substantive law recognizing discriminatory effects liability which has long been in effect.


1. 59 Fed. Reg. 18266, 18269 (Apr. 15, 1994)
(emphasis added).

To browse our library of legal updates, please visit dechert.com/publications

For more information on Dechert's Finance and Real Estate Group, click here; for Dechert's Financial Services Group, click here.

See our Dodd-Frank reference materials for up to date analysis and regulatory actions.


DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Dechert LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Dechert LLP

Dechert LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.