## Facts

- Maurice Miller obtained an American Express “basic” charge card account in 1966.
- Virginia Miller obtained a supplementary card later in 1966; both spouses signed the application, and Virginia agreed to be personally liable for charges on her card.
- Virginia’s supplementary card was individualized: it was issued in her name, carried a separate annual fee, had a different expiration date, and used a different account number from her husband’s.
- After Maurice died in May 1979, American Express automatically cancelled Virginia’s supplementary account under a policy terminating supplementary accounts upon the death of the basic cardholder.
- Virginia learned of the cancellation when a merchant declined her card; this was her first notice.
- American Express invited Virginia to apply for a basic card by completing a short form requesting a change in membership status that did not require financial or credit-history information.
- American Express issued Virginia a new basic card apparently based on her prior card-use history.
- Virginia sued under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and Regulation B, alleging unlawful marital-status discrimination based on cancellation following her change in marital status (widowhood).
- The district court granted summary judgment to American Express on liability; Virginia appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a supplementary cardholder who is personally liable on an individualized account qualifies as an “applicant” protected by the ECOA and Regulation B.
2. Whether an automatic policy cancelling a spouse’s supplementary account upon the death of the basic cardholder violates the ECOA and Regulation B’s marital-status protections.
3. Whether an ECOA plaintiff must always prove discriminatory intent or discriminatory effect to establish liability.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for American Express and remanded.
- The court held Virginia Miller qualified as an “applicant” and a creditworthy spouse protected by Regulation B.
- The court held American Express’s automatic-cancellation policy, as applied to Miller after her husband’s death, violated ECOA as implemented by 12 C.F.R. § 202.7(c).
- The court held proof of discriminatory intent or disparate impact is not always required when a creditor policy is facially inconsistent with Regulation B’s prohibitions.

## Legal Principles

- ECOA prohibits discrimination against an “applicant” in any aspect of a credit transaction on the basis of marital status.
- A person extended credit in her own right—shown by individualized account features and personal liability—can qualify as an ECOA/Regulation B “applicant” even if the account is labeled “supplementary.”
- Regulation B restricts terminating or changing existing credit arrangements solely due to a change in marital status; a spouse’s death can constitute such a change for purposes of the regulation.
- A uniformly applied creditor policy does not avoid ECOA liability if the policy itself conditions continuation of credit on marital status in a manner barred by Regulation B.
- When a challenged practice is facially prohibited by Regulation B, ECOA liability may be established without separate proof of subjective discriminatory intent or measurable disparate impact.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a personally liable, individualized supplementary cardholder is an ECOA-protected applicant and that automatically cancelling her account upon the basic cardholder’s death unlawfully discriminates based on marital status under Regulation B, requiring reversal of summary judgment and remand.


Miller v. Am. Express Co., 688 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir. 1982)