O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 7-6-1 (2019)

Discrimination in extending credit or making loans prohibited

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No bank, lending company, financial institution, retail installment seller, or person extending credit may discriminate or provide requirements which discriminate in the extending of credit or the making of loans solely on the basis of sex, race, religion, national origin, or marital status. (b) Any person, firm, or corporation which willfully violates any provision of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00.

History

Ga. L. 1975, p. 772, §§ 1, 3.

Annotations

Law reviews. For article, “Religious Exercise as

Credit Risk,” see 10 Bank. Dev. J. 119 (1993-1994).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Recovery of damages as remedy for wrongful discrimination under state or local civil rights provisions, 85 A.L.R.3d 351. Discrimination based on marital status under Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1691 et seq.) as defense to

liability for financial obligations, 16 A.L.R. Fed. 3d 9. Discrimination Against Credit Applicant on Basis of Marital Status Under Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1691 et seq.), 18 A.L.R. Fed. 3d 5.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2023–2023 · leading case: Chamber of Com. of the United States of Am. v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau (E.D. Tex. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chamber of Com. of the United States of Am. v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau (E.D. Tex. 2023). “79 In addition, the CFPB’s claimed authority to prohibit dispar- ate-impact discrimination is something that Congress rarely au- thorizes.80 When it does, Congress authorizes disparate-impact 76 See, e.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.