Filed Date: June 16, 2011
Closed Date: 2016
Clearinghouse coding complete
On June 16, 2011, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§3601-3619, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1691-1691f, against the Midwest Bankcentre. The DOJ alleged that the defendant engaged in lending discrimination on the basis of race in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The case had been referred to the Department of Justice by the Federal Reserve Bank, in St. Louis, which had found statistical signs of discrimination.
More specifically, the DOJ alleged that the defendant's choice of locations for branch offices was designed to serve the banking and credit needs of residents of majority-white census tracts, but not those of residents of majority-black census tracts. Similarly, the DOJ alleged that the defendant made loans for residential real estate in predominantly white residential census tracts but avoided serving the similar credit needs of majority-black census tracts. In total, the complaint asserted, the result was illegal redlining: "defendant's policies and practices are intended to deny and discourage, or have the effect of denying or discouraging, an equal opportunity to the residents of the majority-black neighborhoods of the St. Louis MSA, on account of the racial composition of those neighborhoods, to obtain residential real estate-related loans."
In 2000, 76% of the Missouri portion of the St. Louis metro area was non-Hispanic white, and 19% was African-American; the African-American population was mostly concentrated in the northern part of the City of St. Louis and the neighboring northeastern portion of St. Louis County. But the defendant's had drawn an assessment area (as required by the Community Reinvestment Act) that excluded both majority-black areas: the northern part of St. Louis city and the northeast corner of St. Louis County. In fact, the Midwest's CRA assessment area excluded 47 of the 60 majority-black census tracts in the City of St. Louis, and drew a virtual horseshoe around the majority-black census tracts.
Settlement negotiations preceded filing in this case, and on June 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge Frederick R. Buckles approved a detailed consent decree that had been submitted simultaneously with the complaint. The consent decree included both injunctive and monetary relief, described as "designed to expand opportunities to meet the credit needs of residents located in majority-black census tracts in the Missouri portion of the St. Louis MSA [Metropolitan Statistical Area]. Midwest will ensure that its lending products and services are made available and marketed in majority-black census tracts on no less favorable a basis than in majority-white tracts. Midwest commits itself to take all reasonable, practicable actions, consistent with safety and soundness, to increase the level of its residential lending in majority-black census tracts. with the ultimate objective that Midwest offers mortgage lending services on an equal basis as it offers such services in majority-white census tracts."
Among the injunctive measures in the decree were:
The decree also included a variety of record retention and reporting provisions, and a sunset period of five years.
On April 11, 2013, the parties jointly moved to amend the decree, specifically with respect to the $900,000 for special credit programs. The parties stated that the defendant would be "unable to offer the specified forms of financial assistance at a volume that would exhaust the requisite subsidy for the special financing program during the five-year term of the Agreed Order." Therefore, they amended the agreement to provide the defendant "with additional instruments for providing financial assistance intended to facilitate its ability to expend the subsidy through the special financing program." The court approved the amendment on April 15.
The sunset period has passed, and the case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Clearinghouse (10/12/2012)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4298967/parties/united-states-v-midwest-bankcentre/
Buckles, Frederick R. (Missouri)
Abernathy, Terri J (Missouri)
Altman, Stephen D (Missouri)
Armijo, Rumaldo R (Missouri)
Beck, Matthew (Missouri)
Buckles, Frederick R. (Missouri)
Callahan, Richard G. (Missouri)
Clayton, Lindsay Laurie (Missouri)
Eichenholtz, Seth D. (Missouri)
Harrington, Quinn Patrick (Missouri)
Hendry, Melanie Dyani (Missouri)
Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Johnson, Kristin Berger (Missouri)
Kaminski, Gerald Francis (Missouri)
Lawrence, Kathleen O'Malley (Missouri)
McEvoy, Lauren Mary (Missouri)
Niles, Sara Lewenberg (District of Columbia)
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4298967/united-states-v-midwest-bankcentre/
Last updated March 11, 2024, 3:09 a.m.
State / Territory: Missouri
Case Type(s):
Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 16, 2011
Closing Date: 2016
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
United States Department of Justice
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Midwest Bankcentre (St. Louis, St. Louis), Private Entity/Person
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Fair Housing Act/Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.
Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: 85,000
Order Duration: 2011 - 2016
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Provide antidiscrimination training
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
National origin discrimination
Race:
National Origin/Ethnicity: