The program you described could have the potential for fair lending issues stemming from the minimum loan amount, which might result in a “disparate impact” on a protected class (even if no one at the bank has any intent to discriminate). In fact, the FFIEC Interagency Fair Lending Procedures, p. iv used a minimum loan amount of $60,000 as an example of a policy that might have a disparate impact (if it “is shown to disproportionately exclude potential minority applicants from consideration because of their income levels or the value of the houses in the areas in which they live”).

However, the FFIEC procedures state that a policy that results in a disparate impact can be justified by a “business necessity” (with relevant factors including “cost and profitability”) FFIEC Interagency Fair Lending Procedures, p. iv. (The Appendix contains the specific procedures used by examiners who find evidence that a bank policy has a disparate impact on a protected group to evaluate business justifications proffered by banks.) Therefore, we recommend that any reasons for adopting the minimum loan amount and other restrictions should be rooted in business considerations and carefully documented. This way, even if an examiner can find a measureable disparate impact on any protected class, the bank can defend itself by pointing to its business justifications for its policy of setting a minimum loan amount.