10/29/2019 - Financial Services and the LGBTQ + Community: A Review of... (EventID=110163)

Video Description

Tuesday, October 29, 2019 (10:00 AM) -- Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations (Committee on Financial Services) Hearing: "Hearing: Financial Services and the LGBTQ+ Community: A Review of Discrimination in Lending and Housing Connect with the House Financial Services Committee Get the latest news: https://financialservices.house.gov/ Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FinancialDems/ Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FSCDems ------- The witnesses are: • Harper Jean Tobin, Director of Policy, National Center for Transgender Equality • Michael Adams, CEO, SAGE (Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders) • Kerith Conron, Research Director, Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law • Alphonso David, President, Human Rights Campaign • Hua Sun, Professor, Iowa State University • Francis Creighton, President and CEO, Consumer Data Industry Association Overview This hearing will focus on the extent and effects of discrimination against persons who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (“LGBTQ+”) when seeking housing or credit in the United States. The testimony will examine the relevant data that are currently available to inform policy makers regarding the nature and scope of such discrimination. Economic Insecurity Among LGBTQ+ Americans LGBTQ+ discrimination in lending and housing can best be understood against the backdrop of the economic insecurity confronting LGBTQ+ communities. According to a recent analysis by Prudential, LGBTQ persons have fewer financial resources overall, including lower incomes, utilization of basic banking products, and ownership of financial assets (such as retirement accounts), relative to non-LGBTQ respondents. For example, half of LGBTQ respondents had household incomes below $50,000, while the median household income of non-LGBTQ respondents was nearly $70,000. The share of respondents with very low incomes (i.e., below $30,000) was 40% of LGBTQ women, 35% of LGBTQ men, and just 24% of both non-LGBTQ men and women. Further, only half of LGBTQ respondents owned a basic banking product such as a checking, savings, or money market account, while two-thirds of non-LGBTQ respondents owned at least one such product. Only 27% of LGBTQ respondents had an employer-sponsored retirement savings account such as a 401(k), compared with 41% of non-LGBTQ respondents. Just 21% had an individual retirement account, versus 32% of non-LGBTQ respondents. Fully 55% of LGBTQ respondents were found to have zero retirement savings, compared to 42% of the general population with nothing saved for retirement. The report noted obstacles unique to this population, such as a lack of universal protection against job discrimination, unequal access to benefits for same-sex partners, and lack of family support. Wage inequality due to discrimination was identified as a barrier to financial success by 13% of LGBTQ respondents and by 8% of non-LGBTQ respondents. Additionally, gay men and racial minority lesbians were found to have lower rates of homeownership and lower personal incomes. LGBTQ+ persons of color face the greatest economic hardships. A recent report found the highest rates of adults living in poverty are among transgender people of color: 38% of Black transgender adults; 43% of Latinx transgender adults; 41% of Native American transgender adults; and 32% of Asian-American/Pacific Islander (“AAPI”) transgender adults.5 For context, only 14% of white, non-LGBT adults live in poverty. Similarly, LGB adults who are Black or AAPI live in poverty at rates higher than non-LGB adults of the same race: 36% of Black LGB adults vs. 29% of Black non-LGB adults; 17% of AAPI LGB adults vs. 14% of AAPI non-LGB adults. Poverty rates are actually slightly lower among LGB Latinx (34% v. 36%) and Native Americans (30% vs. 32%) than among heterosexuals of the same race. Lack of Legal Protections for LGBTQ+ Americans There are no applicable state law protections against housing discrimination in 28 states, where the majority of LGBTQ+ persons (52%) reside. Nor are there state laws barring credit discrimination against LGBTQ+ borrowers in 35 states and DC. At the federal level, there are no fair housing or credit protections based expressly on sexual orientation or gender identity. In a trilogy of cases now before the Supreme Court, the Justices soon will decide whether federal laws prohibiting sex-based employment discrimination protect LGBTQ+ persons. Depending on the scope of the holdings in those cases, legal observers expect that there may be implications for other federal statutes that also bar sex-based discrimination, such as the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”). In May 2019, the House passed HR 5, the Equality Act, which would expressly add sexual orientation and gender identity to ECOA and the FHA. Under Director Cordray, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“Consumer Bureau”) adopted the position that ECOA’s...