New Jersey Division on Civil Rights Issues Finding of Probable Cause Against Consumer Financial Services Company for Discrimination

Troutman Pepper Locke

[co-author: Stephanie Kozol]*

On March 11, New Jersey Attorney General (AG) Matthew Platkin and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (DCR) announced that DCR issued a finding of probable cause against Advance Funding Partners/Same Day Funding (Advance Funding), a company that provides cash advances and consumer loans, alleging that it violated the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination by discriminating against both consumers and employees.

The finding of probable cause is the result of a complaint filed by an employee of Advance Funding, which led to an investigation by DCR. The employee withdrew the complaint after the owner of Advance Funding allegedly threatened the employee, but DCR continued with its investigation after determining that doing so was in the public interest.

The investigation allegedly found evidence that Advance Funding discriminated against consumers by maintaining a policy of refusing to lend to certain individuals based on their race, national origin, and nationality. In particular, the investigation purportedly uncovered several voice and chat messages wherein Advance Funding’s owner and other employees instructed sales staff to not do business with African, Chinese, or Spanish individuals. It also identified information suggesting that Advance Funding refused to lend to Armenians, non-U.S. citizens, and individuals who do not speak English well. With respect to discrimination against employees, DCR asserted that Advance Funding retaliated against the employee who reported the company’s discriminatory conduct to the DCR by threatening legal action. DCR also claimed that Advance Funding maintained a hostile work environment based on evidence of racist and offensive messages from company management to employees via chat groups.

DCR issued a subpoena to Advance Funding requesting loan application data in connection with the investigation. The owner of the company responded that, as of September 2024, Advance Funding was no longer in operation and that all of the company’s data had been destroyed. Notwithstanding Advance Funding’s noncompliance with the subpoena, DCR concluded that it had enough information to find reasonable grounds that Advance Funding violated New Jersey law by: (1) denying services based on race, national origin, and nationality; (2) retaliating against an employee for filing a complaint with DCR; (3) constructively firing an employee by knowingly perpetuating intolerable employment conditions; and (4) maintaining a hostile work environment. DCR also asserted that Advance Funding’s owner and an Advance Funding employee could be held personally liable for aiding and abetting the company’s unlawful conduct.

This is not the first time the New Jersey AG has focused his attention on discriminatory lending practices in the consumer financial services industry. In October 2024, the AG and DCR released a report detailing the findings of a multiyear investigation into a bank regarding alleged mortgage redlining practices against Black, Hispanic, and Asian communities. In February 2025, the AG and DCR announced that they had taken enforcement action in 20 cases against various property owners, managers, real estate agents, and brokerages for alleged discriminatory practices against recipients of public rental assistance.

This case should serve as a reminder that the AG and DCR will continue to pursue violations of New Jersey’s civil rights laws. We expect to see a continued focus on discrimination and other illegal practices in the consumer financial services industry by other states as well over the next four years in light of an anticipated reduction of federal regulatory scrutiny. We also note that businesses should regularly assess their practices to ensure that they comply with applicable laws and regulations and aim to create and promote a culture of compliance in an effort to avoid issues such as those present here. Just because the CFPB may be reducing its caseload does not mean that the consumer financial services industry is effectively unregulated.

*Senior Government Relations Manager

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Troutman Pepper Locke

Written by:

Troutman Pepper Locke
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Troutman Pepper Locke on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide