Can I sue Lloyd&#39;s Bank on grounds of religious discrimination? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lloyds-bank-removes-overdraft-fee-from-islamic-accounts-9291932.html Does a bank have the right to disadvantage clients (overdraft charges) purely on the basis of their religious beliefs? Can a client be excluded from a free overdraft facility based on their religion?
It doesn't seem as if the bank is discriminating in the way you suggest. They offer two types of account: (A) accrues or charges interest and (B) does not accrue or charge interest. The bank says you can choose A or B whatever your religion. You the customer choose A or B, possibly depending on your religion. So I do not see what cause of action you have or what damages you have suffered. Therefore I don't think you could sue them.
The key difference is the motivation for denying service. Generally, a business can deny service for almost any reason, or for no reason, and doesn't have to explain its reasons for doing so. However, laws may make it illegal to deny service for certain specific reasons. The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. So a business may not deny service for those specific reasons. In the Colorado case, there was a similar state law that also forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. If they deny you service because of your political views, or the way you dress, or because they just plain don't like you as a person, that's legal. If they deny you service because of your sex, or race, or on the other bases in the Civil Rights Act, that's illegal. Obviously, since a business doesn't have to say why they're denying service, or could lie about the reason, this could make it hard for a plaintiff to prove that denial was in fact based on (e.g.) race. They might be able to do so by finding out about internal discussions within the business, or by showing a pattern of denial to customers of a particular race. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, the baker made it easy by explicitly stating that he was denying service because of the customers' sexual orientation, or at least because of the same-sex nature of the marriage in question. This would appear to violate the Colorado state law. Had he just said no without giving a reason, it would have been harder for the plaintiffs to make their case. (A state commission held that the baker did violate the law, but the US Supreme Court reversed because, they said, the commission had improperly taken the baker's religion into account.) But there is no such law that forbids discrimination on the basis of political views, so Alex Jones can't make a similar case.
Regarding to your instructions concerning the funds in the account, it's hard to prove a negative. As far as I know there is no legislation that requires a credit balance to be retained. However, there may be some regulations or internal policies regarding the closure of home loans, which may preclude closure without some documentation or other process. But just because you can't cite legislation that requires you to do things, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You don't ask the new bank to support their claims which contradict the old banks, because it works in your favour. With regard to the last instruction regarding your funds, the bank can and will provide you with a list of fees and charges applied to your account - it's called a statement. With regard to your explicit other option - is what the bank's doing essentially theft? - you can call it theft, but it's not. At worst it's conversion, the remedy for which is the recovery of the converted property, or damages equal to the value of the property. If you have attempted to resolve your complaint through the bank's internal dispute resolution processes (usually some kind of complaint process), you can also contact the Financial Services Ombudsman, who may assist with these situations. Finally, as for your further instructions, they are all void and unenforceable. 1. You cannot impose terms on the conduct of another party without their agreement. This is called a counteroffer or variance to their established terms which you will have agreed to at the time that you established the original loan. 3. You can never be compensated just for your time.
Jurisdiction: england-and-wales Charity law A charity must only allocate its resources in pursuance of its charitable objects. Providing a &quot;bankrupcty shield&quot; to a donor is not capable of being a charitable purpose nor does it meet the public benefit requirement pursuant to sections 1 and 2 of the Charities Act 2011. Bill Gates as a trustee While a charity can pay a salary to its employees, it cannot usually pay its trustees a salary, and its trustees must avoid conflicts of interest. Where a trustee is related to an employee, there is a clear conflict of interest if that trustee takes part in any decision making process which sets the employee's salary. The standard procedure is that any conflicted trustees should sit out of such decisions. If the charity pays a salary far in excess of the market rate for the role, the trustees will open themselves up to being sued by the Attorney General (representing the public / beneficiary) for misallocation of charitable funds. Bill Gates cannot therefore lawfully use his position as trustee of a charity in E&amp;W to ensure that money which he donated is received by his family members via artificially inflated salaries. Bill Gates as a donor If a charity intends to claim Gift Aid on donations then the donation must be non-refundable, pursuant to sections 414(1), 416(1), and 416(3) of the Income Tax Act 2007. In any case, a donor will have no power to compel a charity to return a donation unless the parties entered into a contract to that effect. If no such contract is in effect, then any money Bill Gates has given to the charity is unrecoverable and must be used to further the charity's objects. If such a contract exists, then the adminstrators of Bill Gates' bankruptcy will be able to recover the funds under the contract and use it to pay his creditors, so such an arrangement is useless. Insolvency Act 1986 Under Sections 339 and 441 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the courts can make an order to reverse any transactions at an undervalue (including a gift) which have taken place in the 5 years prior to a bankrupcty (in the case of insolvency) or in the 2 years prior (regardless of insolvency). There is a rebuttable presumption of insolvency under the 5 year rule in cases where the transaction involved an associate of the person. See section 435 for the definition of &quot;associate&quot; which can include relatives, beneficiaries of a trust, and [charitable] companies. This serves to prevent individuals from taking deliberate steps to distribute their assets in advance of a predicted bankruptcy. If the Gates' estate is insolvent does the charity still function? Pursuant to section 34(1) of the Charities Act 2011, a charity will continue to function so long as it remains charitable and hasn't ceased to exist or operate. A charity could cease to exist if the underlying structure no longer exists. In the case of a charitable trust this could happen if all the trustees die without replacement or in the case of a charitable company if it is struck off the register (e.g. if all the directors die and are not replaced). It is unlikely that Bill Gates' estate being insolvent will cause the charity to cease to exist or operate as it will almost certainly have or acquire independent trustees / directors to keep it operating.
It may be discrimination, but it is not discrimination based upon any reason that the company is prohibited from engaging in. This conduct is legal in pretty much all U.S. jurisdictions.
Under 42 USC 2000a(a): All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. So a business may be generally prohibited from discriminating against you on the basis of your religion, but I don't know of any law that requires stores to accommodate whatever aversion or hostility you may feel toward gay people or their allies. On the contrary, such businesses have a First Amendment right to display such decor. So legislation that required them to stop speaking out in support of nice gay people would be struck down as unconstitutional.
Even though student status is not on the list of protected classes, this still might be discrimination. By proxy. Status as student can be a proxy for age, race, and/or color. Maybe even religion if there is a religious school nearby! In fairness to the store manager, when a pack of ten kids comes rolling in on the way home from school things can get pretty hectic. Rather than try to kick out the problem kids many managers will attempt to avoid the problem in the first place. Also, a sign like this might help the manager be less discriminatory. For example, let's say he lets all kids in and only kicks out the ones who are causing problems. If those problem kids are all in one protected class and it's different from the kids who don't get kicked out, the manager looks like he's discriminating based on that protected class. Discrimination by proxy can be hard to prove and I am not sure of the burden of proof in Canada. I have read that "Canadian experience" is used as a proxy in employment discrimination and has been getting some attention lately. That might be a good issue to keep an eye on as it may define proxy discrimination jurisprudence.
Small claims court was created for such matters. There is the possibility of a fee waiver, and if you prevail, you could get some of your costs covered (though there are other hoops to jump through if you need enforcement). A formal letter (written by you) stating that you intend to seek a legal judgment against him/her in the amount owed might be sufficient motivation for the person to pay what is owed.