On September 30, 2009, the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Southern District of Alabama under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act against First United Security Bank. The Department of Justice claimed that the Bank engaged in a pattern or practice of home-mortgage lending discrimination against black applicants It asked the court to: 1) declare that the Bank's practices violated the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; 2) enjoin the Bank from continuing the discriminatory practice; 3) award monetary damages to all victims of the Bank's allegedly discriminatory practices; and 4) asses a civil penalty against the Bank. Specifically, the Department of Justice claimed that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) had reason to believe that in 2004 the Bank discriminated against black applicants on the basis of race by setting higher interest rates for first-lien refinance loans and by failing to meet the lending needs of majority African-American tracts in west central Alabama on an equal basis with majority white tracts.

The case was assigned to Chief Judge William H. Steele. On November 18, 2009, he entered an agreed order for resolution. This agreement stated that the Bank had implemented and would continue to implement policies and procedures that would ensure the pricing of its residential loans were not discriminatory. The bank would also compensate some African-American borrowers under a standard pricing matrix and opening branches in majority African-American areas that it serves. The bank also agreed to asses the credit needs of consumers in majority black areas and engage in consumer education.

This agreement required annual reports by the bank, and was scheduled to terminate in 2014. However, on May 6, 2014 the parties filed a joint motion asking the court to extend the agreement because the bank had been unable to satisfy a provision that required a $500,000 investment in a special fund for lending to minority communities. The submission did not explain why the bank had been unable to make this investment. The agreement was extended for an additional four years or until the bank satisfied the investment requirement, and was approved by Judge Steele on May 7, 2014.

On April 27, 2016, the parties filed a joint status report stating that all provisions of the agreement had been met. Judge Steele dismissed the case the same day.

Megan Dolan - 05/28/2014
Nathaniel Flack - 01/20/2019


compress summary