EthicsQuestion 302 of 400
A neutral-looking lending policy that unintentionally causes a significantly worse outcome for a protected class, without business justification, may still be illegal under the theory of:
a.Disparate impact
b.Disparate treatment
c.Redlining
d.Blockbusting
Explanation
Disparate impact addresses facially neutral policies that disproportionately harm a protected class without a legitimate business necessity. Disparate treatment requires intentional different treatment, while redlining and blockbusting are specific practices rather than the impact theory itself.
Law Reference: Fair Housing Act / ECOA (disparate impact)Practice all 400 questions free — no signup required.
Related questions on this topic
- A family with three young children is told an apartment complex is 'really better suited for adults.' This most likely violates the Fair Housing Act's protection for:
- The practice of denying or restricting mortgage credit to entire neighborhoods based on their racial or ethnic composition, regardless of individual applicants' qualifications, is called:
- A loan officer only shows loan programs in predominantly minority neighborhoods to minority applicants and never mentions those areas to white applicants. This is an example of:
- Under the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP), a practice is 'deceptive' when it:
- Which agency has primary federal authority to enforce the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in consumer mortgage lending?
- A lender structures a product so consumers cannot reasonably protect their own interests and takes unreasonable advantage of their lack of understanding. This best fits which UDAAP category?
Last reviewed: · editorial process
PrepPass Editorial Team · Verified against NMLS SAFE Mortgage Loan Originator National Test · How we review