Is it legal for a bank to discriminate against someone by the services they offer based upon their marital status?
<p>A bank is charging me this kind of fee:</p>

<p>The fee is $0 if you have over a certain amount, or if you have $500 going in through a direct deposit each month. I don't meet these requirements, so I don't qualify for the $0 fee. (Paraphrased from <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/9418/is-it-legal-for-a-bank-to-discriminate-against-someone-by-the-services-they-offe#comment17598_9425">clarifying comment</a>)</p>

<p>Is this discrimination based on marital status? If so, is that legal?</p>

<p>Your bank is not discriminating against you.</p>

<p>Your reasons for not having the required amount of funds pass thru your account has nothing to do with your marital status.</p>

<p>In general, it's problematic to make a chain-of-cause-and-effect argument for discrimination.</p>

<p>For example. Your argument is analogous to the following.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>My boss fired me for being late to work. But I was late to work because my child woke up late and missed the school bus; so I had to drive her to school. Therefore, my boss fired me for having children.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That type of chain-of-cause-and-effect argument for discrimination just doesn't hold water. It is <strong><em>non sequitur</em></strong> and a requires a <strong><em>leap of logic</em></strong>.</p>

<p>Discrimination based on simple marital status is federally prohibited when it comes to various forms of credit, though facts about a spouse can be used in determining eligibility for a loan. There isn't any federal regulation prohibiting differential fees based on marital status. Fees for checking and savings accounts may be regulated at the state level, so you'd have to specify a state.</p>

<p>Are you referring to higher rates on a loan, or line of credit, if you are single? </p>

<p>If so, that may have more to do with financial stability - <strong>two</strong> earners are <em>always</em> a better bet for a loan provider than a <strong>single</strong> earner. So, a single person is a <strong>higher risk</strong> factor. That's not really "discrimination". The debt to income ratio used to factor rates will be different if you don't also have a spouse earning income. Therefor loan rates will be higher if you are single.</p>

<p>Then there's recovery if there is a default. If you are married and default on the loan/credit, the bank can go after you <strong>and</strong> your spouse. Which increases possible recovery rates. If it's just you, recovery would be more difficult, or impossible.</p>

<p>This is the same thing as having an excellent credit score or a poor credit score. You'll pay more if you have a low credit score because you are a <strong>higher risk</strong>. That's not discrimination.</p>

<p>In short, I would suspect the difference you are seeing, without detailed descriptions, are more about the risk factors lenders see between single and married individuals. It's not about marital status as much as it's about stability and defaulting.</p>

united-states finance discrimination banking