On September 17, 2002, plaintiff, a 66-year-old African-American, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691; and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq ...
read more >
On September 17, 2002, plaintiff, a 66-year-old African-American, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691; and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. Plaintiff, a residential real estate landlord, alleged that the defendant-bank wrongfully denied him an unsecured line of credit on the basis of plaintiff's race. Plaintiff sought money damages and was represented by private counsel.
Plaintiff originally included the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as a defendant in the case, but after the FDIC filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 10, 2003, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint excluding the FDIC as a defendant.
U.S. District Court Judge W. Harold Albritton III granted the defendant-bank's Motion for Summary Judgment on September 4, 2003. Cooley v. Sterling Bank, 280 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (M.D. Ala. 2003). Judge Albritton found that "the Plaintiff has not proven a prima facie case of credit discrimination due to the absence of sufficient evidence to establish that Sterling approved loans for applicants outside of the plaintiff's protected class with similar loan qualifications." Cooley, 280 F. Supp. 2d at 1344. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed without opinion on July 16, 2004. Cooley v. Sterling Bank, 116 Fed. Appx. 242 (11th Cir. 2004).
Andrew Nash - 06/02/2008
compress summary
