Court denies lender’s bid to arbitrate DACA suit

Courts DACA Arbitration State Issues ECOA FCRA Class Action

On April 12, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied defendants’ motion to compel arbitration in a matter alleging a lender denied plaintiffs’ applications based on their immigration status. The plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the defendants, alleging the lender denied their loan applications based on one of the plaintiff’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status and the other plaintiff’s status as a conditional permanent resident. The plaintiffs claimed that these practices constituted unlawful discrimination and “alienage discrimination” in violation of federal law and California state law. The plaintiffs also alleged that the lender violated the FCRA by accessing one of their credit reports without a permissible purpose. The defendants moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the claims.

With respect to the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, the lender claimed that the DACA plaintiff “expressly consented to arbitration” when he was required to check a box labeled “I agree” in order to proceed with his online student loan refinancing application back in 2016. However, the DACA plaintiff argued the arbitration agreement “lacked adequate consideration” because he was ineligible for a loan as a DACA applicant, and that even if it were a valid agreement, it only applied to his 2016 application and not to his subsequent attempts to refinance his student loans. In denying the lender’s motion to compel arbitration, the court concluded that the DACA plaintiff did not claim that he was seeking to reopen or have the lender reconsider his 2016 application, but rather he asserted that these were “standalone attempted transactions,” and as such, did not fall within the scope of the 2016 arbitration agreement.

In reviewing whether the lender’s policies constitute alienage discrimination, the court determined, among other things, that while the lender “asserts that it does not discriminate against non-citizens because some non-citizens—namely [lawful permanent residents] and some visa-holders—are still eligible to contract for credit with [the lender],” the distinction “is not supported by the language of the statute,” noting that under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, protections “extend to ‘all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Additionally, the court ruled that the second class of conditional permanent residents whose credit reports were pulled by the lender and allegedly experienced a decrease in their credit scores—despite plaintiffs claiming the lender’s policy states that permanent residents are ineligible for loans if their green cards are valid for two years or less—may proceed with their FCRA claims.