The city of Philadelphia received an early win in its case against banking giant Wells Fargo this week when a federal judge ruled that the city’s lawsuit against the bank can go forward, Reuters reports. 

Philly alleges that Wells Fargo practiced predatory lending when giving loans to black and Latinx customers, and that the bank gave safer, cheaper loans to white borrowers.

The city also says that Wells Fargo offered black and Latinx people high-cost, high-risk loans even when their credit qualified them for safer options.

According to Philadelphia, this practice began in 2004 and has caused many of its citizens to unnecessarily go into foreclosure; the city argues that this has had a negative impact on the city’s economy and housing sector.

Philly found that black Wells Fargo loan holders were 4.1 times more likely to have their loans go into foreclosure than white borrowers. Latinx borrowers were 2.6 times more likely to go into foreclosure.

Wells Fargo claims that none of these allegations are true. Tom Gyoda, a spokesperson for the bank, said, “Wells Fargo has been a part of the Philadelphia community for more than 140 years, and we are prepared to defend our record as a fair and responsible lender.”

The judge on the case, Anita Brody, said that she felt Philadelphia's claims that the bank had practiced “reverse redlining” deserved a day in court; she cautioned the city, however, that she had “serious concerns about the viability of the economic injury aspect of the city’s claim.”

Reverse redlining occurs when a business enters a nonwhite community where it lacks competitors, and charges residents there more for its goods or services than it charges in white areas. Residents are then faced with a problem: if they want the good or service, they have to pay the inflated price.

Philadelphia said that it has taken the judge’s concerns to heart; a spokesperson for the city “looks forward to developing further evidence of Wells Fargo’s alleged discriminatory practices.”