What constitutes comparative evidence of disparate treatment?

Comparative evidence of disparate treatment is identified when similar applicants receive different treatment without justifiable reasons. This concept is important in understanding discrimination in lending practices. If two applicants have similar qualifications—such as credit scores, income, and financial background—and yet one is offered less favorable loan terms or denied entirely while the other is not, it raises concerns about unequal treatment.

The presence of unjustifiable differences indicates potential bias or discrimination, aligning with fair lending laws. It's essential to establish whether the treatment variations can be accounted for by legitimate factors, such as financial history or creditworthiness, rather than personal characteristics of the applicants.

Other options relate to factors that, while they may indicate inequality, do not directly reflect that nuanced situation of similar individuals receiving different treatment. For example, different outcomes based on location or variations in fees among borrowers can be justified by external market conditions or operational costs, and differences in reported income pertain more to individual financial circumstances rather than treatment comparisons.