Final answer:
Scenario B shows illegal discrimination as Anytown Finance processes loan applications from Asians slower than those from Whites, which is against anti-discrimination laws. It differentiates based on race rather than individual qualifications, whereas the other scenarios do not show discrimination and are based on neutral criteria.
Step-by-step explanation:
Among the given scenarios, scenario B indicates a form of illegal discrimination wherein Anytown Finance processes applications from Asians in five days, but processes applications from Whites in two days. This practice violates anti-discrimination laws because it treats applicants differently based on their race, which could affect the applicant's access to financial services.
It is a clear example of discriminatory behavior because it does not assess individuals based on their qualifications or creditworthiness, but rather on a group characteristic (race) that is irrelevant to the loan application process. Such actions are prohibited under federal anti-discrimination laws, which are administered by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
In contrast, scenario A simply outlines a standard check for documentation completeness, scenario C provides a benefit based on credit score which is a neutral criterion, and scenario D applies a uniform fee to all applicants regardless of group membership. These scenarios do not indicate discrimination as they are based on neutral policies that apply equally to all applicants without regard for race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics.