5 September 2013 – Consumer Financial Services Watch

Request For Further Review Delays Lifting Of DOL Interpretation On Loan Officer Overtime

Sep 05 2013

By: Thomas H. Petrides, John L. Longstreth

The federal Court of Appeals’ decision in July ordering the withdrawal of a 2010 DOL Administrator’s Interpretation regarding the eligibility of mortgage loan officers to be paid overtime has been further delayed by an August 16 petition for rehearing. Several employee loan officers intervened in the case and filed a request for the full D.C. Circuit to review the July 2 decision. The DOL is also expected to file a similar request and has until September 6 to do so. Under court rules, the request automatically delays sending the case back to the district court to vacate the DOL Interpretation. There is no set time frame for the Appeals Court to rule on the rehearing request. If the court grants the request and agrees to rehear the case, the DOL Interpretation would likely remain in place until a decision on the rehearing issues. If the request is denied, the case will promptly move back to the district court to vacate the DOL Interpretation, unless a further stay is sought and obtained in connection with a request for Supreme Court review.

In the interim, the 2010 DOL Interpretation, determining that loan officers in the mortgage banking industry do not qualify as exempt from overtime under the administrative exemption of the FLSA, currently remains in place. The July 11, 2013 K&L Gates Alert discussing the appeals court decision has been updated to reflect the petition for rehearing having been filed.

To read the full alert, click here.

Township of Mount Holly: The United States Supreme Court Considers Whether the Fair Housing Act Recognizes Disparate-Impact Liability

Sep 05 2013

By: Paul F. Hancock, Andrew C. Glass, Melanie Brody, John L. Longstreth, Roger L. Smerage

On September 3, 2013, K&L Gates LLP filed a brief as amici curiae before the United States Supreme Court in Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., a case in which the Court will consider whether the Fair Housing Act recognizes a disparate-impact theory of liability. The brief addresses the effect that the Court’s recognition of the disparate-impact theory would have on the residential mortgage lending industry and was filed on behalf of the American Financial Services Association, the Consumer Mortgage Coalition, the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the Mortgage Bankers Association. A copy of the as-filed brief is available here. The Court is likely to schedule oral argument in the matter for late 2013 or early 2014.

To read the full alert, click here.

Archive:5 September 2013