Howard County Equity Listening Session on September 10th

 

Please join The Maryland Commission on Civil Rights and Howard County's Office of Human Rights & Equity as they embark on a listening session. Residents will have an opportunity to directly communicate their views on the state of civil and human rights in the State of Maryland and their local community. CLICK ON THE FLYER TO REGISTER

Victim of Discrimination? Training & Partnerships

HOME      ABOUT MCCR      SERVICES      PUBLICATIONS      EVENTS      PRESS      CONTACT US

31st Baltimore Civil Rights Breakfast on October 7th

Get Your Tickets Today!!! It’s that time of year again! The Baltimore City Office of Equity and Civil Rights is excited to invite you to join us for the 31st Civil Rights Breakfast! We will be gathering this October 7th at the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel (700 Aliceanna St, Baltimore, MD 21202) from 8:00am to 11:00am. A time-honored tradition, we are privileged to host so many change makers and trailblazers from in and around the Baltimore area for the official kick off to Civil Rights Week. Join us as we dive into the theme of “From Protest to Progress” and acknowledge the amazing contributions of our Impact Award recipients, the obstacles we have overcome, and the challenges that still face us as we work to build a more equitable community for all. Governor Wes Moore has proclaimed 2024 to be “Maryland’s Year of Civil Rights”. Let’s make it one to remember! Date: Monday, October 7th, 2024 Time: 8:00am to 11:00am Location: Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel (700 Aliceanna St, Baltimore, MD 21202) Individual Ticket - $75.00 Full Table - $675.00 Get Your Tickets Here >> Civil Rights Week 2024 - Eventeny Questions? Contact Jumel Howard at (443) 602-5461 or jumel.howard@baltimorecity.gov

 

On August 5, 2024, the Maryland Department of Housing & Community Development (DHCD) issued a Fair Housing Memorandum that applies to the full spectrum of housing activities, including, but not limited to, outreach and marketing, qualification and selection of residents, and occupancy. 

The Department has modified their requirements for Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plans and Tenant Selection Plans to comply with the HUD Guidance. Owners and/or managers of properties that have received LIHTC awards, program funds, or other subsidies from the Department are now required to submit a copy of their tenant selection plan or policy by January 1, 2025, to evidence compliance with the policies.

The Memorandum includes revised and updated policies regarding: 

• Credit History Screening
• Eviction History Screening
• Criminal Record Screening
• Admission Criteria

DHCD will review the tenant selection plan or policy to ensure it complies with DHCD requirements and will reject any plan that isn’t in conformance.

Read DHCD's CDA AFHM Memo.

New Jersey proposes new disparate impact discrimination rule

 

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights have announced a proposed rule describing and clarifying the prohibitions against disparate impact discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The proposed rule clarifies the legal standard for disparate impact discrimination and the burdens of proof in claims in the housing, financial lending, employment, places of public accommodation, and contracting. The proposed rule largely codifies existing state and federal case law and provides examples of policies and practices that may result in a disparate impact on members of a protected class under the LAD.

New Jersey’s proposed LAD prohibits conduct that expressly treats people differently based on their membership in a protected class and policies or practices that have a negative impact on members of a protected class. Under the LAD, even policies or practices that are neutral on their face and that do not single out a protected class for different treatment may violate the LAD if they have a disparate impact on protected class members.

Proposed rule

The proposed rule is intended to clarify that the LAD prohibits practices or policies that result in a disproportionately negative effect on members of a protected class, even if such practices or policies are not intended to discriminate, unless it is shown that such are necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest and there is no less discriminatory, equally effective alternative that would achieve the same interest. The proposed new rule provides the standard for determining whether a practice or policy is unlawfully discriminatory, and the burden-shifting framework applied to the standard for disparate impact claims arising in specific contexts. The proposed rule covers how liability for disparate impact may apply to many examples of policies and practices.

Subchapter 4 regards housing and housing financial assistance. A proposed burden-shifting framework putting the burden of showing that there is not a less discriminatory, equally effective alternative means of achieving the housing provider’s or lender’s substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest on the respondent at the final stage of the burden-shifting test. If the complainant can show the practice or policy results in a disparate impact on members of a protected class, the respondent must show that the challenged practice or policy is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest and that there is not a less discriminatory, equally effective alternative means of achieving that.The respondent may, but is not required to, identify what policy or practice options it considered and how and why it decided to select the policy or practice.

 Here are some examples of policies and practices that may have an unlawful disparate impact: 

• Minimum income requirements.
• Financial standards, or income standards that have a disparate impact on people seeking to pay rent with forms of government low-income rental assistance; Excluding applicants based on criminal or credit history.
• Automatically refusing all rental housing applicants who have no credit score or a score below a minimum threshold.
• Requiring a renter or buyer to violate or forgo a sincerely held religious practice or observance.
  

This framework aligns with how New Jersey courts and the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights have applied disparate impact liability. Placing the burden on the respondent to prove no less discriminatory alternatives exist is appropriate “in light of the particularly stark information asymmetry between housing providers and victims of housing discrimination, as housing providers are far more likely to have access to information about the challenged practice or policy, their interests, what potential alternative practices or policies are available, and whether an alternative could serve their interests while having less discriminatory effects.” Increased use of tenant screening reports and online platforms in housing sale and rental markets have made it especially difficult for complainants to access information about specific housing providers’ policies and practices, and that there is a significant imbalance in access to legal representation in housing cases, as landlords have legal representation in 90% of housing cases involving eviction, while less than 10% of renters have legal representation in such cases.

The proposed rule also would apply to the practices and policies of real estate brokers, agents, salespersons, property management, and lending institutions. For lending institutions, this includes making available or unavailable the provision of housing financial assistance, establishing financial assistance terms or conditions, and the creation and application of criteria requirements, procedures, or standards for the review and approval of real estate transactions, with the exception of evaluations of an applicant’s consumer credit history where required for a federal loan product or formula or practices or policies that enforce federal guidelines.

Read the June 4, 2024 VitalLaw article. 

Read the June 14, 2024 Fox Rothschild LLP article. 

Credit Unions Exploit Federal Tax Exemption to Buy Tax-Paying Community Banks - Not Subject to Community Reinvestment Act requirements

Nonprofit credit unions are buying record numbers of for-profit banks. Until recently, a nonprofit couldn't own a for-profit, but tax changes in recent years have changed the dituation.

As the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) recently wrote: "Credit unions are increasingly exploit their federal tax exemption to acquire tax-paying community banks, the need for policymakers to re-examine their tax status is urgent. Action is needed now to preserve community banks and the communities that depend on them, ensuring the continued vitality of the relationship-based banking sector that has supported Main Street America for generations.

Credit unions pay no tax to operate the same business that was taxable the day before once they acquire a bank. As public scrutiny of these inappropriate deals and the number of credit union purchases of taxpaying community banks have raced past record highs, policymakers must protect local communities by ending the credit union tax exemption,” Rainey said. As more than 20% of bank deals this year have been credit unions leveraging their tax exemption to purchase banks, the media is taking note: 

• Axios: Why credit unions are buying banks.

• American Banker: Credit unions extend bank-buying spree.

• Credit Union Today: Citing exec pay, sports deals, 'lavish' HQs, bank group tells Congress there are new reasons to revoke CU tax exemption.

• Op-ed: Confessions of a credit union executive turned community banker.

• Op-ed: Stop letting credit unions buy community banks."

As Axios recently concluded:  Credit unions have many advantages over banks. They pay less in taxes and don't need to deliver profits to shareholders.They also have less of a regulatory burden — they aren't subject to Community Reinvestment Act requirements, for instance, and their National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund is in healthier shape than the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund.

• Axios: Why credit unions are buying banks.

• American Banker: Credit unions extend bank-buying spree.

• Credit Union Today: Citing exec pay, sports deals, 'lavish' HQs, bank group tells Congress there are new reasons to revoke CU tax exemption.

• Op-ed: Confessions of a credit union executive turned community banker.

• Op-ed: Stop letting credit unions buy community banks."

   

  Read the August 19, 2024 ICBA article.
  

Agencies Finalize Interagency Guidance on Reconsiderations of Value for Residential Real Estate Valuations

On August 20th, five federal regulatory agencies issued final guidance addressing reconsiderations of value (ROVs) for residential real estate transactions. The guidance advises on policies and procedures that financial institutions may implement to allow consumers to provide financial institutions with information that may not have been considered during an appraisal or if deficiencies are identified in the original appraisal. 

According to VivalLaw, the guidance will allow lenders and borrowers to request and provide additional information to supplement appraisals in assessing real estate value

The agencies are:

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Part 34
[Docket ID OCC-2023-0007]
 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 225
[Docket No. OP-1809]
 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
12 CFR Part 323
RIN 3064-ZA36
 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Part 722
[Docket ID NCUA-2023-0061]
 

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU
12 CFR Chapter X
[Docket No. CFPB-2023-0033]

ROVs are requests from a financial institution to an appraiser or other preparer of a valuation report to reassess the value of residential real estate. Deficiencies identified in valuations, either through an institution’s valuation review processes or through consumer-provided information, may be a basis for financial institutions to question the credibility of the appraisal or valuation report.

The guidance offers examples of ROV policies and procedures that a financial institution may implement to help institutions identify, address, and mitigate discrimination risk; describes the risks of deficient residential real estate valuations; and explains how financial institutions may incorporate ROV processes into risk management functions. The agencies finalized the guidance largely as proposed, with the addition of clarifying edits based on public comments received on the proposed guidance published in July 2023.

The guidance ultimately recommends that financial institutions should develop ROV policies that identify, address, and mitigate deficient values. The guidance recommends policies that:

• Consider ROVs as a possible resolution for consumer complaints or inquiries related to residential property valuations.

• Consider whether any information or other process requirements related to a consumer’s request for a financial institution to initiate an ROV create unreasonable barriers or discourage consumers from requesting the institution initiate an ROV.

• Establish a process that provides for the identification, management, analysis, escalation, and resolution of valuation-related complaints or inquiries across all relevant lines of business.

• Establish a process to inform consumers how to raise concerns about the valuation early enough in the underwriting process for any errors or issues to be resolved before a final credit decision is made.

• Identify stakeholders and clearly outline each business unit’s roles and responsibilities for processing an ROV request.

• Establish risk-based ROV systems that route the request to the appropriate business unit.

• Establish standardized processes to increase the consistency of consideration of requests for ROVs.

• Ensure relevant lending and valuation-related staff, inclusive of third parties (e.g., appraisal management companies, fee-appraisers, mortgage brokers, and mortgage servicers) are trained to identify deficiencies (including practices that may result in discrimination) through the valuation review process.

The FFIEC in its previous principles has stressed: "Valuation discrimination or bias can cause consumer harm, lead to violations of law, and have a detrimental impact on communities. In addition, valuation discrimination or bias could result in deficient and unreliable collateral valuations that undermine an institution’s credit decisions and negatively impact its safety and soundness."

Read the final guidance.

Read the July 19, 2024 VitalLaw article. 

August 28th Webinar on Grants Pass Decision & People with Disabilities

 

REGISTER TODAY Wednesday, August 28, 2024 2 - 3:30 PM ET Webinar: What the Grants Pass Decision Means for People with Disabilities

Join the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and the National Homelessness Law Center for an essential discussion on Wednesday, August 28, 2 - 3:30 PM ET on "What the Grants Pass Decision Means for People with Disabilities." On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case called City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson (“Grants Pass”) that fining and jailing people experiencing homelessness for sleeping outside when they have nowhere else to go does not violate the cruel and unusual punishments clause of the constitution. The decision has given states and local governments the go ahead to make criminalization their primary, front-line response to homelessness and has had devastating effects on the civil rights of thousands of unhoused people across the United States. This webinar will: Provide an overview of the Grants Pass case and the disability-related “friend of the court” briefs filed in the case; Explain why people with disabilities are particularly at-risk of harm due to the increased criminalization of homelessness; Explore the relationship between the Grants Pass case, CARE Courts / civil commitments, and efforts to increase the institutionalization of disabled people; Critique the role of law enforcement and judicial authorities in responding to homelessness; and Provide an overview of advocacy tools and strategic thinking regarding potential next steps in advocacy. Speakers: Michelle Uzeta, Deputy Legal Director, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Monica Porter Gilbert, Policy & Legal Advocacy Attorney, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Siya Hegde, Staff Attorney, National Homelessness Law Center  REGISTER TODAY.  **ASL and CART (live captions) provided. Contact Diana Vega at dvega@dredf.org for any accommodations you may need by August 21st. Late requests may not be possible to fill.