| Volume 134 Number 10 |
Subscribe to the Newsletter
Forward this news alert to your family and friends
Helpful Links
Texas Consumer Complaint Center
Credit Reports and Identity Theft
Your Guide to Small Claims Court
Contact Us
1-713-743-2168
The People’s Lawyer’s Tip of the Day
How you complain make a difference. Electronic messages are taken more seriously than a phone call, but a certified letter is taken more seriously than anything electronic.
Click here for more.
Supreme Court says cities can sue banks under US housing law
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that cities may sue banks under the federal anti-discrimination in housing law, but said those lawsuits must tie claims about predatory lending practices among minority customers directly to declines in property taxes. Miami claimed that Wells Fargo and Bank of America, as well as Citigroup, pursued a decade-long pattern of targeting African-American and Hispanic borrowers for costlier and riskier loans than those offered to white customers.
Click here for more.
Your Money
The Radial eCommerce Fraud Technology Lab reports what it calls an alarming increase in credit card "testing." That's when criminals who have obtained stolen credit card numbers use them to make small purchases, usually for five dollars or less. The purpose is to make sure the card is still good. If the transaction goes through, the fraudster knows the card is valid. That then gives the credit card thief the green light to make a big purchase, maybe for several thousand dollars. Radial is concerned because "testing" is up 200% over last year. It concludes that can only mean that credit card thieves are ramping up their activities. While this mostly affects retailers, consumers have skin in the game as well. In most cases, liability for fraudulent purchases is limited to $50. Still, it's $50 you don't want to have to pay. It also means the inconvenience of having your old credit card cancelled and a new one issued. Click here for more.
For the Lawyers
Title VII Prohibits Sexual Orientation Discrimination. In an en banc decision, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as a form of sex discrimination. Kimberly Hively sued Ivy Tech Community College after her contract was terminated in 2014, alleging the school denied her a full-time position because she is a lesbian. A district court tossed the suit, ruling that Title VII does not protect against sexual orientation discrimination and a panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed. After agreeing to hear the case en banc, the Seventh Circuit reversed itself, describing the plaintiff’s claim as “paradigmatic sex discrimination.” “A policy that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation does not affect every woman, or every man, but it is based on assumptions about the proper behavior for someone of a given sex,” the majority wrote. “The discriminatory behavior does not exist without taking the victim’s biological sex (either as observed at birth or as modified, in the case of transsexuals) into account.” Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana (7th Cir. 2017). Click here for more.