Showing 1–20 of 374 results
14 DCMR § 309
309.2. A landlord may not retaliate against a tenant for exercising rights under this chapter. Retaliatory conduct is prohibited by D.C. Code § 42-3505.02.
Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
...Bridges was asserting a retaliation defense. The joint pretrial statement also contained requests by Ms. Bridges for both a jury instruction and a special-verdict form to address the retaliation defense.
Salazar v Fairbairn Properties LLC Final Order, No. TP-29645 (D.C. Off. Admin. Hr'gs 2009)
retaliation. Although there is no independent cause of action for retaliation, it is a well-
§ 42-3505
conditions complaint triggered a statutory presumption of retaliation, and that Brown
Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
...Bridges was not required to refer explicitly to the retaliation defense in her trial testimony. First, although she did not use the word “retaliation,” Ms. Bridges did provide testimony sufficient to support the retaliation defense, by testifying that she filed...
Wahl v. Watkis, 491 A.2d 477 (1985)
Furthermore, we conclude that appellant’s contentions regarding retaliation are without merit. She contends in her brief in this court that she presented evidence in the trial court to show an unlawful retaliation by appellee under D.C.Code § 45...
§ 42-3505
trial where the tenant asserted a retaliation defense claiming that the landlord did not
Reshard v. Stevenson (2022)
pretext for retaliation against Ms. Reshard, Ms. Reshard provided the trial court with
Brown v. Pearson (2020)
an email, he accused her of violating the Rental Housing Act by retaliating against
Park v. Brahmbhatt (2020)
their positions without instilling a fear of retaliation, i.e., an action for damages.’” 16
§ 42-3501
6 The six tenant actions triggering a presumption of retaliation are:
Twyman v. Johnson, 655 A.2d 850 (1995)
54 A.2d 144 (D.C.1947).” We express no view on this issue, however, because the affirmative defense of retaliation (as distinct from Twyman’s separate claim and counterclaim alleging retaliation) had no effect upon the jury’s verdict...
§ 42-3501
the Housing Provider sent him the lease-options letter in retaliation for his
§ 42-3501
retaliation (a premise petitioner has not challenged and that we accept). The RHC
§ 42-3501
coercive . . ., [his] retaliation claim would still fail because [he] did not prove that
Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)
Sindram argues that the determination meant “merely that the landlord had met its burden to disprove a retaliatory motive,” appearing to regard it as a finding of fact regarding retaliation. The ALJ actually found, however, that “Petitioner’s claim of...
§ 42-3501
3505.02 (b). When no presumption of retaliation applies, the agency looks to
§ 42-3501
The RHC began its analysis of the retaliation/coercion issues in this case by
§ 42-3501
benefits from the presumption of retaliation. The presumption includes that the housing provider