## Facts

- Claire Cherry, a white woman, applied for an Amoco gasoline credit card and was denied.
- Amoco’s adverse action notice listed three reasons: (1) “our credit experience in your immediate geographical area,” (2) “level of income,” and (3) “type of bank references.”
- Amoco determined the “immediate geographical area” by the applicant’s ZIP code.
- Cherry alleged her neighborhood was predominantly Black and that Amoco’s geographic factor functioned as a proxy for race.
- Cherry sued under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq., and Regulation B, alleging (1) race discrimination in violation of § 1691(a)(1) and (2) false, misleading, or insufficiently specific denial reasons in violation of ECOA notice requirements and 12 C.F.R. § 202.9(b)(2).
- Amoco moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, and also moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether a white credit applicant has standing under ECOA to assert a race-discrimination claim based on alleged discriminatory use of geographic criteria tied to a predominantly Black neighborhood.
2. Whether allegations that a creditor used a geographic proxy for race and provided inaccurate or insufficiently specific reasons for denial state claims under ECOA and Regulation B.
3. Whether Amoco was entitled to summary judgment on the ECOA discrimination and adverse-action notice claims.

## Decision

- The court denied Amoco’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held Cherry had standing because ECOA protects “any applicant,” not only minority applicants.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged discrimination under § 1691(a)(1) based on use of ZIP-code “credit experience” as a race-linked criterion.
- The court held the complaint plausibly alleged violations of ECOA’s notice requirements and Regulation B due to allegedly false, misleading, or insufficiently specific denial reasons.
- The court denied Amoco’s motion for summary judgment because genuine disputes of material fact remained regarding discriminatory effect and the adequacy and accuracy of the stated reasons.

## Legal Principles

- ECOA’s anti-discrimination protections extend to “any applicant”; standing is not limited to members of historically disadvantaged racial groups.
- A facially neutral credit criterion may be actionable under ECOA when alleged to operate as a proxy for a prohibited basis (including race), such as geography closely correlated with race due to residential segregation.
- Creditors must provide adverse-action reasons that are specific, accurate, and not misleading, consistent with ECOA notice requirements and Regulation B (12 C.F.R. § 202.9(b)(2)).
- Summary judgment is inappropriate where material factual disputes exist about whether a credit policy is discriminatory in operation and whether the creditor’s stated reasons satisfy regulatory specificity and truthfulness requirements.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the ECOA and Regulation B claims to proceed, holding that a white applicant may challenge alleged race-linked credit denial criteria and that disputed facts about discriminatory use of geography and the adequacy of denial reasons precluded dismissal and summary judgment.


Cherry v. Amoco Oil Co., 481 F. Supp. 727 (N.D. Ga. 1979)