Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Cason v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp.
No. 3-98-0223 (Middle D. Tenn. filed July 10, 2000) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53037
Description
Class Action Against Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation Alleges That Credit Financing System Discriminates Against African Americans
Abstract
Plaintiffs—two African Americans—filed against Nissan
Motor Acceptance Corp. a class action alleging that the
corporation’s policies and practices discriminate against
them on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691. Plaintiffs allege that the
corporation controls dealer-based financing by requiring specific
forms, evaluating customer creditworthiness, establishing the buy
rate, and offering financial incentives for the dealer to add
unfair nonrisk finance charges to the transaction. Plaintiffs
allege that defendant has notice of the discriminatory effects of
its credit pricing system as a result of various automobile
financing and banking industry articles in trade journals, legal
proceedings by the Department of Justice, and sampling its own
data. Under a 1999 sampling, the average finance charge markup for
African Americans was $969.91 per contract; for whites, $506.94.
Plaintiffs allege that the disparities between the terms of credit
transactions involving African Americans and those of white
consumers have a disproportionately negative effect on African
American and other minorities. In its motion for summary judgment,
defendant denied liability for the discriminatory acts of its
dealerships.
Additional Information
Files
- Fourth amended complaint
- Brief of the U.S. as amicus curiae in support of palintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment
- Plaintiff's response ro NMAC
- Plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to NMAC's motion for summary judgment
- Plaintiffs' reply to NMAC's memorandum in opposition to class certification
- Plaintiffs' response to NMAC's statement of undisputed facts
