Our bank system currently requires New Account Representatives to specify a "gender" of the person the account was opened for. This "gender" specification is on the set up sheet for the Rep to fill out, the customer does not see this sheet. If the Rep does not specify a "gender" the system will automatically label the person as a "male." The gender is not there for any tracking reasons (like HMDA), it is just the way the system is. Is this a Equal Credit violation or something to turn a blind eye to?

Depends, is this something the lending staff could get a hold of?

Personally, I like that idea. I see names on accounts that I need to deal with and I have no idea if I am supposed to communicate with a man or woman. As long as this information is not reported anywhere or used in a prohibited manner.

By the way, I just found out this morning that one of our tellers, Florian, is a man. Am I prejudiced because I assume tellers are female?

Kara - With regard to merely opening an account there is probably no problem. However, if you also open an overdraft protection line of credit then you have gathered gender info outside of what is required/allowed by Reg B.
If you delay or somehow separate the LOC application from the account opening process you are probably OK.

Then we move on to CIP requirements that will pretty well mandate that you obtain a form of ID that is going to indicate sex, i.e., drivers license. We will have to see what the final regs say about the conflicts between Reg B and CIP.

Yes, the lending staff does have access to this system and they can see the gender specification.

I do agree that at times, it would be nice to see the specification.

On the deposit side, there's no problem. Lending, on the other hand, is another matter,(for non HMDA loans)if loan officers & others making credit decisions have access to this info.

I don't understand the purpose for obtaining such info - especially in this day and time.

I agree with ahou. If the lending staff has access to this information you could have yourself in an ECOA violation, if that information is not to be obtained. I would think twice about obtaining it. Its not information you need to have on the ops side.

Section 202.5(d)(3) states:

Sex. A creditor shall not inquire about the sex of an applicant. An applicant may be requested to designate a title on an application form (such as Ms., Miss, Mr., or Mrs.) if the form discloses that the designation of a title is optional. An application form shall otherwise use only
terms that are neutral as to sex.

Why not just ask the person if they like to be referred to as Ms., Miss, Mr., or Mrs. I think you have a problem otherwise. I would call the software vendor and ask them to research this issue.

Our system asks for this info. as well, however, it is not a required field. But, this thread brings to mind another question, how reliable is the info. in the system? We imported the information from our old system and through a few acquisitions. A lot of accounts were coded personal instead of business, male instead of female and no one really relies on the info being correct unless it is obvious like when it says Frank Smith is male, we can generally feel comfortable calling this person "Mr."

I disagree that lenders merely having access to the gender information is a problem. The information is obtained in connection with opening a deposit account. Unless the customer is applying for an overdraft line of credit at the same time, there is no reason the bank can't note the customer's gender on the system. And there is nothing in Reg B that says a lender can't know what the gender of a loan applicant is. They can't request the information for certain types of loans, but knowing from the system that a customer is male or female is not a Reg B violation unless the lender uses that information to discriminate in some way.

Hey, my Dad's name was Floryan. The teachers at grade school would ask my parents names and when I said "Floryan..." they would say, "And what is your father's name?" I learned real quick to start with Mom's name, Dolores.

Lee, if you are not to obtain the information, yet have access to the information, would not the examiners frown on such availability? I see you point because that information should already be known.

I think this is the exact problem. As a former examiner I can tell you it is hard for a bank to be convincing when they say their lenders did not use race/sex information they ordinarily would not have access too (assuming we're not talking dwelling loans here). The fact that the bank gathers this info and has it contained in a system that lending officers can see and POTENTIALLY use, even subconciously, is the issue and the hurdle to overcome. I see both sides of the argument, but from a regulatory perspective I'd be hard pressed to understand how gathering and maintaining this info is essential. This is a toughie.

I find no problem with the practice. 90% of the anglo names we see identify the gender. Were I a banker with a large mideastern or far eastern customer base, where the gender of the name isn't so apparent, I would appreciate knowing the gender of my customer before I called or wrote that person. So would every senator, congressperson and regulator of banks. I think Emily Post called it manners.

To say building such a database MIGHT result in discrimination is a stretch. That argument would scream then for us to note only an initial for a name. Otherwise what would stop a lender from denying a loan to that guy named Sue?

So has anyone noticed higher gender discrimination rates with its in-person applications vs. its telephone applications? In the in-person applications, the lender clearly has information about the applicant's gender. What's the difference there vs. in a database?