Alliant Credit Union Illegally Denied Auto Loan to DACA Recipient Due to ‘Residency Status,’ Class Action Alleges
Camacho v. Alliant Credit Union
Filed: March 16, 2022 ◆§ 5:22-cv-01690
A class action alleges Alliant Credit Union has denied full access to loan products and services to certain applicants based on their immigration status or alienage, including to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients.
A proposed class action alleges Alliant Credit Union has wrongfully denied full access to loan products and services to certain applicants based on their immigration status or alienage, including to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients.
The plaintiff, a Salinas, California resident, alleges in the 11-page suit that when she informed Alliant during the loan application process that she was a DACA recipient, she was told by a representative that the credit union does “not lend on DACA status.” The Alliant rep told the plaintiff, whose loan application had been pre-approved by Alliant, that her husband, a U.S. citizen and co-signer on the auto loan, would have to submit another application solely in his own name and remove her from the application, the lawsuit claims.
During the application process, Alliant sought to determine the plaintiff’s foreign-national status by requesting that she upload either I-797 or I-94 forms if she was a visa holder, a permanent resident card if she was a permanent resident, or a naturalization certificate if she was a naturalized citizen, the lawsuit states. According to the suit, when the plaintiff, who received DACA status in 2012, informed Alliant through its messaging portal that she was not a visa holder, permanent resident or naturalized citizen, but a DACA recipient, the woman was told that the credit union does not lend on DACA status and that her husband would need to submit a new application without her name.
The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff then received from Alliant an adverse action notice that stated the principal reason for being denied the loan, which the consumer applied for in order to finance the purchase of a Tesla vehicle, was due to her “residency status.”
“Alliant’s denial of her application caused [the plaintiff] to feel discriminated against and excluded from participating in commerce in the United States,” the complaint reads. “[The plaintiff] suffered harm and emotional distress as a result of Alliant’s unlawful denial of her application.”
The lawsuit alleges Alliant has violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by refusing to provide the plaintiff and others an opportunity to apply for financial products due to their immigration status.
The case looks to represent all persons who resided in the United States at the relevant time they applied for or attempted to apply for a financial product from Alliant but were denied full and equal consideration by Alliant on the basis of alienage.
The plaintiff also looks to represent all persons who resided in California at the relevant time they applied for or attempted to apply for a financial product from Alliant but were denied full and equal consideration by Alliant on the basis of their immigration status.
Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.
Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits
Stay Current
Sign Up For
Our Newsletter
New cases and investigations, settlement deadlines, and news straight to your inbox.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.