Section 18
- Citation
- Section 18
- Parent Document
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Jurisdiction
- Massachusetts (state)
- Effective Date
- 2000-02-11
Other Sections in This Document (45)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Mogilevsky v. Keating, 11 Mass. L. Rptr. 332 (2000)
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
- Section 18
Full Text
893 charsMogilevsky alleges that he was retaliated against for complaining to the Landlord about housing conditions in violation of G.L.c. 186, §18.8 (Id. ¶45.) Mogilevsky alleges that in April, when he realized that his apartment would not be renovated, he complained in writing to the Landlord. (Id.) Because of that complaint and for no other reason, Mogilevsky maintains that his employment and housing were terminated. (Id.) The statute provides protection from “[a]ny person . . . who threatens to or takes reprisals against any tenant of any residential premises for the tenant’s act of . . . complaining of such violation or suspected violation in writing to the landlord . . .” G.L.c. 186, §18. Taking the facts alleged by Mogilevsky as true, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as to Count IV, the termination of Mogilevsky’s employment and eviction in retaliation for his complaints.