I went to that snopes article to see what you were talking about, and although it categorizes it as false, it only categorizes it as false because Obama was only a junior lawyer in the suit.
That snopes article, after the big flag of “false”, when some might just stop reading and say “oh, ok, that is just false then”, goes on to show Obama WAS in on the action, if only as a junior lawyer. That article defines Obama’s part as representing a Calvin Roberson in 1994 against Citibank, charging that “the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods.”
Snopes admits (after they claim the information is false to begin with) that the lawsuit (in which they themselves admit Obama was a part of) charged that Citibank (and I’m writing from snopes.com itself) “rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories.”
So here is what I get from the snopes.com attempt to call this false — that snopes called it false because Obama was only one of the lawyers involved and not the one who actually “FILED” the claim to begin with. Obama WAS involved, according to snopes (if you were careful enough to read the article itself) and Obama represented one of the cases, again according to snopes.
Oh, there are plenty other Obama articles on snopes as well, mostly flagged as false as well, but DO make sure you read the articles with a keen eye for WHY they might declare them as false. There is usually a minor detail in the story they will take to declare the entire thing false, and if you just read the true or false flag, you’ll be sorely unaware of the truth itself!