Glover v. Wells Fargo Bank

Background

Wilbert Glover brought the case without a lawyer against Wells Fargo Bank and several individual Wells Fargo employees. He alleged that Wells Fargo denied him equal credit opportunities because of his race, violating the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982, and state law. In an earlier order, the court dismissed all claims against the individual defendants and dismissed claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and Minn. Stat. § 363A.12, subd. 1. The remaining claims were against Wells Fargo under §§ 1981 and 1982 and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691.

Glover alleged that Wells Fargo denied two credit-card applications, an auto-loan application, and a home-mortgage application because of his race. He also described interactions with Wells Fargo employees involving alleged racial comments, difficulties obtaining a debit card, a monthly service fee, and problems receiving help with complaints and transactions.

Evidence and arguments

Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Glover did not respond to the motion by the deadline and had not responded by the date of the order. The court nevertheless reviewed the record rather than granting the motion automatically.

The court stated that each of Glover’s statutory claims required proof that Wells Fargo acted with discriminatory intent. Wells Fargo presented letters and declaration testimony stating that the credit-card denials were based on delinquency, debt-to-credit ratio, credit inquiries, and insufficient or negative payment history. It presented evidence that the auto-loan denial was based on credit score, inquiries, and debt use. Wells Fargo also presented evidence that a money-order problem resulted from a misunderstanding, that a replacement debit card was sent in December 2021, and that the $15 monthly service fee was charged because Glover did not meet any of the account requirements for avoiding the fee.

The court found no direct evidence of discrimination tied to a person with authority over a credit decision or contract. It also found that Glover had not produced evidence supporting the required initial showing under the burden-shifting framework discussed in the opinion. For the Equal Credit Opportunity Act claim, he did not identify evidence that he was qualified for the credit or that Wells Fargo approved credit for similarly qualified applicants. For the §§ 1981 and 1982 claims, he did not identify similarly situated Wells Fargo customers. The court further found that he had presented no evidence showing Wells Fargo’s stated reasons were a pretext, meaning a cover for unlawful discrimination.

Alternative sanction argument

Wells Fargo alternatively asked the court to dismiss the action under Rule 41(b) and the court’s inherent power because Glover allegedly failed to prosecute the case and abused the litigation process. The court commented that Glover had not sought discovery and that Wells Fargo had presented evidence concerning his communications with former opposing counsel. The court did not resolve those arguments because summary judgment on the merits produced the same requested result.

Ruling

The court held that Wells Fargo was entitled to summary judgment on each remaining claim. The order states: “Defendant’s motion for summary judgment ... is GRANTED and this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.