Showing 1–20 of 81 results
(3) In an action by or against the tenant, evidence of a complaint within 6 months before the alleged act of retaliation creates a rebuttable presumption that the landlord's conduct was in retaliation. The presumption does not arise if...
(3) In an action by or against the tenant, evidence of a complaint within 6 months before the alleged act of retaliation creates a rebuttable presumption that the landlord's conduct was in retaliation. The presumption does not arise if...
(3) In an action by or against the tenant, evidence of a complaint within 6 months before the alleged act of retaliation creates a rebuttable presumption that the landlord's conduct was in retaliation. The presumption does not arise if...
(3) In an action by or against the tenant, evidence of a complaint within 6 months before the alleged act of retaliation creates a rebuttable presumption that the landlord's conduct was in retaliation. The presumption does not arise if...
70-24-431 . Retaliatory conduct by landlord prohibited. (1) Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate by increasing rent, by decreasing services, or by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession after the...
70-33-431 . Retaliatory conduct by landlord prohibited. (1) Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate by increasing rent, by decreasing services, or by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession after the...
70-24-431 . Retaliatory conduct by landlord prohibited. (1) Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate by increasing rent, by decreasing services, or by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession after the...
70-33-431 . Retaliatory conduct by landlord prohibited. (1) Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate by increasing rent, by decreasing services, or by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession after the...
¶22 On March 3, 2000, Denke filed two Human Rights complaints with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry, alleging that Shoemaker and the City had unlawfully retaliated against her for filing and prosecuting her 1999 sexual harassment and retaliation...
¶34 In short, the hearing examiner ruled that the City “did not illegally retaliate against Denke, since its actions complained of were protected speech or immune legislative acts,” and the City “was not responsible for Shoemaker’s illegal retaliation.” The...
¶70 The hearing examiner determined that Shoemaker illegally retaliated against
constituted unlawful retaliation. The examiner did determine that (1) “Denke presented
constitute unlawful retaliation. That question depends on the laws defining and
contemplates that wrongful conduct (such as unlawful retaliation) was committed within
between the Human Rights Act’s prohibition against retaliation and these affirmative
personal attacks on Denke,” constituted unlawful retaliation. She points out, based on
develop an effective gay political identity; gay persons are disinclined to risk retaliation
retaliated against Denke when he circulated these statements and innuendos in his letters,
acts,” and the City “was not responsible for Shoemaker’s illegal retaliation.” The
prohibiting unlawful retaliation; and with respect to the February 14 council meeting, the