The program you described, in which bank employees are using individual discretion to create exceptions for certain customers, has some potential for raising concerns about discrimination. Such use of discretion might result in a “disparate impact” on a protected class (even if no one at the bank has any intent to discriminate). Even though fair lending laws do not apply to deposit accounts, the general prohibition on unfair, deceptive, and abuse acts and practices (UDAAP) could apply.

However, if the exceptions are made on the basis of a consistent policy that is applied to all customers equally, that could help to mitigate the risk of a UDAAP or discrimination issue. For example, if the exceptions are made only for customers who take financial literacy classes, the classes should probably be open to all customers or members of the public, and the exceptions should be available to every class participant.

If exceptions are made for customers outside of the financial literacy classes, the bank might consider a “second chance” account policy that would apply to all customers who do not qualify under your current procedures (with certain safeguards, such as a lower overdraft limit, as you suggested). 

In revising your policies, you may want to consider the FFIEC Interagency Fair Lending Procedures, which explain the concept of disparate impact and how institutions can mitigate the risk that a policy (such as allowing discretion in waiving account opening requirements) will be found to be discriminatory. The FFIEC procedures state that a policy that results in a disparate impact can be justified by a “business necessity,” with documentation of any factors that went into deciding on the policy. FFIEC Interagency Fair Lending Procedures, p. iv. Of course, a deposit account would not fall under the definition of “credit” under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or under the other fair lending laws, but this approach could be helpful in the context of deposit accounts.