What law can be violated by a practice that has a discriminatory effect even if it was not adopted for discriminatory purposes?

The Fair Housing Act is designed to combat discrimination in housing practices. One of its key provisions is that it prohibits practices that result in a discriminatory effect, even if those practices were not intended to be discriminatory. This means that if a lender or other housing provider implements a policy or practice that inadvertently disadvantages a protected class of individuals—such as based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability—it can still be in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

This aspect of the law emphasizes the importance of both intent and impact, recognizing that even seemingly neutral practices can perpetuate discrimination if they disproportionately affect certain groups. For instance, if a lending practice tends to reject a higher percentage of loan applications from one demographic group compared to others, it could be considered discriminatory, regardless of the lender's intent.

In contrast, the other laws mentioned, such as TILA and the Fair Credit Reporting Act, focus on specific consumer protections related to credit and lending practices, rather than directly addressing the issue of discrimination in housing. ECOA is related to fair lending but is concerned primarily with equity in the lending process rather than housing in general. Thus, the prominence of discriminatory effects under the Fair Housing Act makes it the correct choice in this context