On July 5, 2011, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act. More specifically, DOJ alleged that Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. ...
read more >
On July 5, 2011, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act. More specifically, DOJ alleged that Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. discriminated against women on paid maternity leave by requiring the women to return to work before insuring their mortgages.
This lawsuit originally arose after a loan applicant in Wexford, PA filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD referred the case to the DOJ after completing a thorough investigation of the complaint.
In the months following the DOJ's initial filing of the suit's complaint, the two parties negotiated a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement provided $7500 in monetary damages to each woman impacted by Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp.'s previous policy as well as additional damages for the applicant in Wexford, PA who filed the initial complaint in Pennsylvania.
The settlement agreement also required Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. to establish anti-discriminatory underwriting and practice policies. Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. agreed to train its managers and employees who underwrite mortgage insurance. Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. also agreed to a monitoring program designed to supervise compliance with the Order.
The court (Judge Robert Mitchell) approved the consent order on April 30, 2012. The consent order resolved all claims set forth in the United States’ Complaint against the Defendants in this matter. It required eight semiannual reports on compliance with its terms, beginning October 2012, and was set to terminate in July 2016 unless the United States demonstrated good cause for extension.
On March 14, 2013, the court approved the parties' joint motion for disbursement of funds. According to the consent order, defendant agreed to distribute any money remaining in the Settlement Fund to qualified organizations that conduct fair housing enforcement, fair lending enforcement, or educational activities addressing sex or familial status discrimination.
The parties informed the Court that $30,000.00 plus accumulated interest remained in the Settlement Fund after the payments to the aggrieved persons who returned a release. The court approved the defendant's choices of two organizations that would receive the funds: The National Community Reinvestment Coalition and The Metropolitan Milwaukee Fair Housing Council. The defendant was ordered to instruct each organization, as a condition of receiving the funds, that it must use the funds in a manner related to addressing sex and familial status discrimination in housing and lending. The terms also included that the organization submit a report to the defendant and the United States within one year after the funds are distributed detailing how it used the funds for such purposes.
The docket shows no further activity after entry of the consent order, so presumably it closed according to schedule in July 2016.Megan Richardson - 11/20/2014
Asma Husain - 01/31/2016