Title: Elk Creek Management Co. v. Gilbert
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S060187
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: May 31, 2013

Filed:  May 31, 2013 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 
 
ELK CREEK MANAGEMENT COMPANY,  
Respondent on Review, 
v. 
 
HAROLD GILBERT and MELISSA STRITTMATTER,  
Petitioners on Review. 
 
(CC M09072786; CA A143348; SC S060187) 
 
 
En Banc 
 
 
On review from the Court of Appeals.* 
 
 
Argued and submitted January 7, 2013. 
 
 
Edward Johnson, Oregon Law Center, Portland argued the cause and filed the 
brief for petitioners on review. 
 
Respondent on review waived briefing and oral argument. 
 
 
WALTERS, J. 
 
 
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The judgment of the circuit 
court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. 
 
 
*Appeal from Malheur County Circuit Court, Francisco J. Yraguen, Judge. 244 Or 
App 382, 260 P3d 686 (2011), adh'd to as modified on recons, 247 Or App 572, 270 
P3d 362 (2012). 
 
 
1 
 
 
WALTERS, J. 
1 
 
 
ORS 90.385 prohibits a landlord from "retaliat[ing] by" serving notice to 
2 
terminate a tenancy after the tenant has made a complaint that is in good faith and related 
3 
to the tenancy.1  In this case, we conclude that, to prove retaliation under ORS 90.385, a 
4 
tenant must establish that the landlord served the notice of termination because of the 
5 
tenant's complaint.  The tenant need not prove, in addition, that the complaint caused the 
6 
landlord actual or perceived injury or that the landlord intended to cause the tenant 
7 
equivalent injury in return.  We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, Elk Creek 
8 
Management Co. v. Gilbert,  244 Or App 382, 260 P3d 686 (2011), adh'd to as modified 
9 
on recons, 247 Or App 572, 270 P3d 362 (2012), and the judgment of the circuit court, 
10 
and we remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.   
11 
 
 
This case concerns a month-to-month tenancy pursuant to a written rental 
12 
agreement.  After the landlord gave the tenants a 30-day no-cause notice of termination 
13 
of tenancy and the tenants failed to vacate the premises, the landlord filed an action for 
14 
                                              
 
1 
ORS 90.385 provides, in part: 
 
"(1)  Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate 
by increasing rent or decreasing services, by serving a notice to terminate 
the tenancy or by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession 
after: 
 
"* * * * * 
 
"(b)  The tenant has made any complaint to the landlord that is in 
good faith and related to the tenancy[.]" 
 
2 
possession.  The tenants filed an answer denying that the landlord was entitled to 
1 
possession and alleging that the landlord had given notice of termination because of the 
2 
tenants' legitimate complaints.  The trial court rejected the tenants' defense and made 
3 
written Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, which serve as the basis for our 
4 
recitation of the underlying facts.2  We recite those facts as background for the legal issue 
5 
presented -- the meaning of ORS 90.385. 
6 
 
 
At some time before May 19, 2009, the tenants "made some sort of general 
7 
complaint(s) to [the owner] about the electrical system on the property."  The manager 
8 
also had noticed a bent service mast and had become concerned about the property's 
9 
electrical service.  On May 19, the landlord gave the tenants written notice that the owner 
10 
wanted to do a "walk-through" of the premises.  That notice stated that the owner was 
11 
going to "check out the breaker box and want[ed] to see the floor in the bathroom."  After 
12 
the initial walk-through, the manager advised the tenants that she wanted to do another 
13 
walk-through on June 16.  A licensed electrician accompanied the owner and the manager 
14 
on that second walk-through, and, at its conclusion, the electrician recommended that the 
15 
owner make repairs to the electrical system.  It was apparent "to everyone" that those 
16 
                                              
 
2 
In our discussion of the facts, we refer to Nancy DeBoer, the owner of the 
premises, as "the owner."  The owner employed plaintiff Elk Creek Management 
Company to manage her property, and plaintiff in turn employed Shelly Gluch.  We refer 
to Gluch as "the manager."  We refer collectively to the owner and plaintiff as "the 
landlord."  We refer to defendants, Harold Gilbert and Melissa Strittmatter, as "the 
tenants." 
 
3 
repairs would "involve a cost to the owner."  The manager called the tenants the next 
1 
afternoon and informed them that the owner had decided to terminate their lease.  The 
2 
following day, the tenants received a 30-day no-cause termination notice and a note from 
3 
the manager, which stated: 
4 
"I am sorry that I have to give you the thirty days notice.  [The owner] has 
5 
several repairs including updating the electrical.  If there is anything I can 
6 
do please let me know."   
7 
At trial, the manager testified that she had issued the notice of eviction based on 
8 
instructions from the owner.  The owner did not testify.   
9 
 
 
In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the trial court recognized 
10 
that "[i]t is a landlord's duty during a tenancy to 'maintain the dwelling unit in a habitable 
11 
condition' and [to maintain the] 'electrical lighting with wiring and electrical equipment   
12 
* * * in good working order.'  ORS 90.320(1)(e)."  The court found that the electrical 
13 
system for the dwelling in question was not in good working order.  The court further 
14 
found that (1) it was "a reasonable inference that [the tenant's] conversations with [the 
15 
owner] as well as [the manager's] concern with the service mast caused [the owner] to 
16 
want to do the initial walk-through on May 19th";3 and (2) there was no evidence of the 
17 
owner's reason for termination other than that expressed in the note sent by the manager  
18 
                                              
 
3 
In addition, and in accordance with the May 19 notice, the court found that 
the owner had initiated the walk-through to "check out the breaker box and * * * floor in 
the bathroom."  The court did not explain the apparent discrepancy between that finding 
and its finding that the manager's concern about the service mast was one of the reasons 
for the walk-through. 
 
4 
-- that the owner "has several repairs including updating the electrical."  The court 
1 
concluded, however, that the tenants had not established that the tenancy termination 
2 
constituted "retaliation" by the owner:   
3 
"The concept of retaliation (lex talionis) has ancient foundations and in 
4 
common language is easily understood in metaphors such as 'an eye for an 
5 
eye' or 'a tooth for a tooth.'  The essence of the concept is that when one 
6 
suffers a real or perceived wrong, a like injury will be inflicted upon the 
7 
one who did the initial real or perceived harm.  [The tenants] inflicted no 
8 
wrong upon [the owner] when they noted some problems involving the 
9 
electrical system.  Nor did [the owner] attempt to respond in a wrongful 
10 
manner by attempting to harm [the tenants] by terminating their tenancy 
11 
when such complaint(s) were made.  In fact, it appears that during the 
12 
tenancy [the owner] has spent considerable sums attempting to maintain the 
13 
premises in a habitable condition during the tenancy, and took no action 
14 
against [the tenants] when they were previously in default on their rent.  In 
15 
fact, the conduct and circumstances involved in this case on the part of both 
16 
[the tenants] and [the owner] are rather innocuous in this Court's opinion.  
17 
The facts of this case do not in this Court's opinion establish that the 
18 
tenancy termination constituted retaliation by [the owner] against [the 
19 
tenants] because they expressed at some point prior to the termination that 
20 
they had some electrical concerns regarding the premises." 
21 
(Emphases in original; footnotes omitted.) 
22 
 
 
The tenants appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed.  Elk Creek 
23 
Management Co. v. Gilbert, 244 Or App 382, 260 P3d 686 (2011) (Elk Creek I).  The 
24 
Court of Appeals held that "[t]he concept of retaliation as the term is used in ORS 90.385 
25 
involves an intention on the part of the landlord to cause some sort of disadvantage to the 
26 
tenant, motivated by an injury (or perceived injury) that the tenant has caused the 
27 
landlord[,]" and that the tenants had failed to prove those facts.  Id. at 390.  The court also 
28 
included in its opinion two additional sets of statements.  One set of statements concerned 
29 
a landlord's options if the landlord could not afford to make repairs or decided to take the 
30 
 
5 
property off the market: 
1 
"We agree that requiring a retaliatory motive might decrease a tenant's 
2 
confidence that his or her complaint will not lead to eviction.  A tenant may 
3 
realize that an opportunistic landlord could, with no intent to inflict a 
4 
retributory injury whatsoever, evict the tenant because the landlord could 
5 
not afford to make the repairs or decided to take the property off the market 
6 
completely.  Such a landlord has not violated ORS 90.385 simply because 
7 
the eviction follows on the heels of a tenant's complaint, at least as the 
8 
statute is now written -- the product, as the legislative history cited above 
9 
demonstrates, of political compromise between interests representing 
10 
landlords and tenants." 
11 
Id.  Another set of statements concerned the role of temporal proximity in demonstrating 
12 
retaliation:    
13 
 
"Legislative history is not always illuminating, but we can say with a 
14 
high degree of confidence that this legislative history, in the absence of 
15 
statutory text on the issue, demonstrates that, under the current version of 
16 
ORS 90.385, a tenant cannot rely on chronology -- a complaint soon 
17 
followed by a notice of eviction -- to establish a presumption of retaliation 
18 
that the landlord must then rebut.  Thus, in order to prevail in this case, 
19 
defendants have to affirmatively establish retaliation, and the outcome here 
20 
depends on what that term means." 
21 
Id. at 389 (emphasis in original).  
22 
 
 
The tenants sought reconsideration.  They contested the court's 
23 
interpretation of ORS 90.385 and also asked the court to reconsider the two sets of 
24 
statements, which the tenants characterized as "dicta that will have sweeping, dangerous, 
25 
and presumably unintended consequences for tenants."  Elk Creek Management Co. v. 
26 
Gilbert, 247 Or App 572, 574, 270 P3d 362 (2012) (Elk Creek II).  The court granted the 
27 
tenants' motion in part.  It declined to revisit the issue of statutory construction but 
28 
addressed the tenants' arguments about the two sets of statements.  First, the court 
29 
considered the tenants' argument that, by permitting landlords to evict tenants if landlords 
30 
 
6 
could not afford repairs or decided to take the leased property off the market, the court 
1 
had created two new statutory exceptions to a tenant's retaliation defense.  The court 
2 
agreed with the tenants that it did not have authority to insert statutory exceptions and 
3 
retracted the offending paragraph.  Id. at 579.   
4 
 
 
Second, the court considered the tenants' argument that temporal proximity 
5 
could, under some circumstances, constitute evidence of retaliation.  Id. at 580.  The 
6 
court explained that the legislative history that it had reviewed demonstrated that the 
7 
legislature had "discarded temporal proximity as sufficient for a tenant to establish a 
8 
prima facie rebuttable presumption of retaliation that would shift the burden to the 
9 
landlord to demonstrate the eviction was nonretaliatory."  Id.  However, the court 
10 
clarified, the tenants' suggestion that a reasonable trier of fact could draw from such 
11 
evidence "a permissible inference that the landlord's act was motivated by the tenant's 
12 
complaint" was consistent with its opinion.  Id. 
13 
 
 
We allowed the tenants' petition for review to consider the tenants' 
14 
argument that the Court of Appeals incorrectly interpreted ORS 90.385 when it declared 
15 
that "[t]he concept of retaliation as the term is used in ORS 90.385 involves an intention 
16 
on the part of the landlord to cause some sort of disadvantage to the tenant, motivated by 
17 
an injury (or perceived injury) that the tenant has caused the landlord."  Elk Creek I, 244 
18 
Or App at 390.  The tenants contend that, to prove retaliation under ORS 90.385, a tenant 
19 
must prove only that a landlord took one of the actions specified in ORS 90.385 because 
20 
a tenant engaged in a statutorily protected activity; no additional proof of injury or intent 
21 
to harm is required.   
22 
 
7 
 
 
The landlord did not file a brief in this court, but, as the Court of Appeals 
1 
recognized, "[o]ur task is to interpret the statute correctly regardless of the parties' 
2 
interpretations and concessions."  Id. at 387 (citing Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or 72, 77, 948 P2d 
3 
722 (1997) ("In construing a statute, this court is responsible for identifying the correct 
4 
interpretation, whether or not asserted by the parties.")).  We begin the task of statutory 
5 
construction with the text of the statute at issue.  See State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72, 
6 
206 P3d 1042 (2009).   
7 
 
 
ORS 90.385(1) prohibits a landlord from "retaliat[ing] by" taking certain 
8 
described acts "after" a tenant has engaged in certain described activities.4  A landlord 
9 
                                              
 
4 
ORS 90.385(1) provides:  
 
"Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate by 
increasing rent or decreasing services, by serving a notice to terminate the 
tenancy or by bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession 
after: 
 
"(a) The tenant has complained to, or expressed to the landlord in 
writing an intention to complain to, a governmental agency charged with 
responsibility for enforcement of any of the following concerning a 
violation applicable to the tenancy:  
 
"(A) A building, health or housing code materially affecting health 
or safety;  
 
"(B) Laws or regulations concerning the delivery of mail; or  
 
"(C) Laws or regulations prohibiting discrimination in rental 
housing;  
 
"(b) The tenant has made any complaint to the landlord that is in 
good faith and related to the tenancy;  
 
 
8 
may not retaliate by (1) "increasing rent or decreasing services"; (2) "serving a notice to 
1 
terminate the tenancy"; or (3) "bringing or threatening to bring an action for possession," 
2 
after a tenant has (1) made or expressed an intent to make specified complaints, including 
3 
a complaint that is "in good faith and related to the tenancy"; (2) "organized or become a 
4 
member of a tenants' union or similar organization"; (3) "testified against the landlord in 
5 
any judicial, administrative or legislative proceeding"; (4) with certain exceptions, 
6 
"successfully defended an action for possession brought by the landlord within the 
7 
previous six months"; or (5) "performed or expressed intent to perform any other act for 
8 
the purpose of asserting, protecting or invoking the protection of any right secured to 
9 
tenants under any federal, state or local law."   
10 
                                              
 
"(c) The tenant has organized or become a member of a tenants' 
union or similar organization;  
 
"(d) The tenant has testified against the landlord in any judicial, 
administrative or legislative proceeding;  
 
"(e) The tenant successfully defended an action for possession 
brought by the landlord within the previous six months except if the tenant 
was successful in defending the action only because:  
 
"(A) The termination notice by the landlord was not served or 
delivered in the manner required by ORS 90.155; or  
 
"(B) The period provided by the termination notice was less than 
that required by the statute upon which the notice relied to terminate the 
tenancy; or  
 
"(f) The tenant has performed or expressed intent to perform any 
other act for the purpose of asserting, protecting or invoking the protection 
of any right secured to tenants under any federal, state or local law." 
 
9 
 
 
The tenant activities that the statute protects are acts that a tenant has a right 
1 
to take.  For instance, ORS 90.360 expressly permits a tenant to give a landlord notice of 
2 
a failure to materially comply with ORS 90.320, the statute that requires that landlords 
3 
maintain leased premises in a habitable condition, and ORS 105.137 permits a tenant to 
4 
defend against a landlord's action for possession.  The final subparagraph of ORS 
5 
90.385(1), subparagraph (f), protects a tenant from retaliation after a tenant has 
6 
performed "any other act for the purpose of asserting, protecting or invoking the 
7 
protection of any right secured to tenants under any federal, state or local law."  
8 
(Emphasis added.)  That subparagraph recognizes that there are many laws that grant 
9 
tenant rights and indicates a legislative intent to protect tenants from retaliation when 
10 
they exercise those rights.  The legislature's use of the phrase any "other act" in 
11 
subparagraph (f) refers back to the acts specifically listed in the preceding subparagraphs 
12 
and suggests that they too describe acts that a tenant has the right to take.  Thus, ORS 
13 
90.385 describes two categories of acts:  those that a landlord is prohibited from taking in 
14 
retaliation and those that a tenant has the right to take and that the legislature protects 
15 
against retaliation.  
16 
 
 
In describing the relationship between the prohibited landlord acts and the 
17 
protected tenant acts, ORS 90.385 states that a landlord may not "retaliate by" taking one 
18 
of the prohibited acts "after" the tenant has taken one of the protected acts.  ORS 90.385 
19 
does not expressly require that a tenant demonstrate that the tenant's protected acts caused 
20 
injury to the landlord or that the landlord perceived the tenant's acts as causing injury.  
21 
ORS 90.385 also does not expressly require that a tenant demonstrate that a landlord took 
22 
 
10 
one of the prohibited acts with an intent to cause injury to the tenant.  Thus, the question 
1 
before us is whether the legislature nevertheless intended to impose those requirements, 
2 
and, if not, what requirement or requirements the legislature did intend to impose.  
3 
 
 
The trial court and the Court of Appeals discovered the requirements of 
4 
injury and intention to impose injury in return in the word "retaliate."  The trial court 
5 
interpreted that word to capture the concept of "lex talionis," which the court described as 
6 
having ancient foundations and as being easily understood in metaphors such as "an eye 
7 
for an eye" or "a tooth for a tooth."5  The essence of that concept, as the trial court 
8 
described it, is that, "when one suffers a real or perceived wrong, a like injury will be 
9 
inflicted upon the one who did the initial real or perceived harm."  In 1973, when the 
10 
Oregon Legislature enacted ORS 90.385, Black's Law Dictionary defined "lex talionis" as 
11 
"[t]he law of retaliation; which requires the infliction upon a wrongdoer of the same 
12 
injury which he has caused to another."  Black's Law Dictionary 1058 (4th ed 1968).  At 
13 
that time, Webster's defined "lex talionis" as "[l]iterally, law of retaliation; -- in primitive 
14 
societies, the custom of inflicting a similar injury upon one who inflicts an injury, as in 
15 
the Old Testament law of an eye for an eye, etc."  Webster's Second New Int'l Dictionary 
16 
1423 (unabridged ed 1934).6 
17 
                                              
 
5 
Those phrases appear in the Book of Exodus:  "[T]hou shalt give life for 
life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth[.]"  Exodus 21:23-24 (King James). 
 
6 
The ancient law of lex talionis may have served to limit vengeful 
retribution.  The Code of Hammurabi provided for a system of punishment proportional 
 
 
11 
 
 
ORS 90.385 obviously does not require that a landlord punish a tenant 
1 
according to the wrong inflicted by the tenant.  It could, however, prohibit a landlord's 
2 
exercise of lex talionis, and that is the construction that the Court of Appeals apparently 
3 
adopted.  The court determined that "retaliate" means to "repay or requite in kind (as an 
4 
injury)" or "to put or inflict in return."  Elk Creek I, 244 Or App at 389-90.  The court 
5 
reasoned that, when the legislature prohibited a landlord from retaliating against a tenant, 
6 
it intended to prohibit a landlord that suffers injury from causing a tenant injury in kind.  
7 
Id. at 390.  In Biblical terms, the court decided, the legislature intended to bar a landlord 
8 
from taking "an eye for an eye." 
9 
 
 
The correct construction of ORS 90.385 does not, however, turn only on 
10 
the dictionary definition of one of its words.  We also must consider the context in which 
11 
the legislature used the word "retaliate" and other indicators of the legislature's intent.  
12 
Gaines, 346 Or at 171-72.  When we do so, we conclude, for the reasons that follow, that 
13 
the legislature did not intend to require that a tenant prove that the tenant's protected act 
14 
caused the landlord actual or perceived injury or that the landlord intended to cause the 
15 
tenant injury in return; rather, the statute is satisfied if the landlord made the decision to 
16 
act because of the tenant's protected activity.    
17 
                                              
to the crime, and Hebrew law restricted compensation to the value of the loss.  See W. 
Gunther Plaut & David E. Stein eds., The Torah : A Modern Commentary, 528-29 (rev 
2005).  Thus, the concept of lex talionis might more properly be described as only one 
eye for one eye.  See also Thomas A. Balmer, Some Thoughts on Proportionality, 87 Or 
L Rev 783, 784-85 (2008). 
 
12 
  
 
First, as explained, a tenant who takes one of the actions referenced in ORS 
1 
90.385(1) takes an action that the tenant has a right to take and that the legislature intends 
2 
to protect.  For instance, a tenant has a right to notify a landlord of necessary repairs.  
3 
ORS 90.360(1)(a) (tenant may notify landlord of material noncompliance with ORS 
4 
90.320).  A tenant's exercise of that right provides the landlord with information that 
5 
enables it to meet its statutory obligation to maintain leased premises in habitable 
6 
condition.  ORS 90.320.  Thus, when the legislature prohibits the landlord from 
7 
retaliating, the legislature advances two interconnected interests:  an interest in allowing 
8 
tenants to assert their statutory rights, and an interest in having landlords fulfill their 
9 
statutory obligations.  It would be inconsistent with those interests for the legislature to 
10 
impose a requirement that the tenant prove that his or her exercise of those rights caused 
11 
the landlord injury.  
12 
 
 
Second, the enactment history of ORS 90.385 demonstrates that the 
13 
legislature did not intend to require proof of injury or intent to harm.  The Oregon 
14 
Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ORLTA), which includes ORS 90.385, was 
15 
enacted in 1973.7  The ORLTA was modeled on the Uniform Residential Landlord and 
16 
Tenant Act (1972) (URLTA), Elk Creek I, 244 Or App at 387, and, as originally enacted, 
17 
ORS 90.385 mirrored section 5-101 of that Uniform Act.8  Both acts prohibited a 
18 
                                              
 
7 
Former ORS 91.865 (1973), renumbered as ORS 90.385 (1989). 
8 
Section 5-101 of the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act 
 
 
13 
landlord from "retaliat[ing] by" taking specified actions after a tenant had engaged in 
1 
protected activities, including complaining of a landlord's violation of statutory 
2 
habitability requirements, and both acts included a "disputable presumption" that the 
3 
                                              
(1972) (URLTA) provides, in part: 
 
"(a)  Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate 
by increasing rent or decreasing services or by bringing or threatening to 
bring an action for possession after: 
 
"* * * * *  
 
"(2)  the tenant has complained to the landlord of a violation under 
[a different section of the URLTA requiring that the landlord maintain the 
premises]. 
 
"* * * * *  
 
"(b) * * * In an action by or against the tenant, evidence of a 
complaint within [1] year before the alleged act of retaliation creates a 
presumption that the landlord’s conduct was in retaliation." 
 
ORS 91.865 (1973), renumbered as ORS 90.385 (1989), provided: 
 
"(1)  Except as provided in this section, a landlord may not retaliate 
by increasing rent or decreasing services or by bringing or threatening to 
bring an action for possession after: 
 
"* * * * * 
 
"(b)  The tenant has complained to the landlord of a violation under 
ORS 91.770 [a different statute requiring that landlord maintain premises in 
habitable condition] 
 
"* * * * *  
 
"(2) * * * In an action by or against the tenant, evidence of a 
complaint within six months before the alleged act of retaliation creates a 
disputable presumption that the landlord's conduct was in retaliation * * *." 
 
14 
landlord had engaged in retaliation if the landlord acted within a specified period after the 
1 
tenant's protected activity.  Under the URLTA, that period was one year; under the 
2 
ORLTA, that period was six months.   
3 
 
 
Section 5-101 of the URLTA included a comment that explained that, 
4 
before the adoption of either act, courts in seven states and the District of Columbia had 
5 
"upheld the defense of retaliatory eviction" and that other states had recognized that 
6 
defense by statute.9  Chronologically, the first of the cited cases was Edwards v. Habib, 
7 
                                              
 
9 
The comment to Section 5-101 of the URLTA provides:  
 
"State and federal courts in California (Aweeka v. Bonds, 20 
Cal.App.3d 281, 97 Cal.Rptr. 650 [1971]; Schweiger v. Bonds, 3 
Cal.App.2d 507, 90 Cal.Rptr. 729 [1970] ), Florida (Bowles v. Blue Lake 
Development Corp., [S.Florida, 1971], C.C.H.Pov.L.Rptr. Sec. 12,920), 
Massachusetts (McQueen v. Druker, 317 F.Supp. 1122 [D.Mass.1970] ), 
New Jersey (Alexander Hamilton Savings and Loan Assn. v. Whalen, 107 
N.J.Super. 89, 257 A.2d 7 [1969]; Engler v. Capital Management Corp., 
112 N.J.Super. 445, 271 A.2d 615 [1970]; E. E. Newman Inc. v. Hallock, 
116 N.J.Super. 220, 281 A.2d 544 [1971]; Silberg v. Lipscomb, 117 
N.J.Super. 491, 285 A.2d 86 [1971] ), New York (Hosey v. Club Van 
Courtlandt, 299 F.Supp. 501 [S.D.N.Y.1969] ), Ohio (T.R.O. granted, Case 
No. 8375 [S.D.Ohio] ), Wisconsin (Dickhut v. Norton, 45 Wis.2d 309, 173 
N.W.2d 297 [1970] ) and the District of Columbia (Edwards v. Habib, 397 
F.2d 687 [D.C.Cir.1968] ) have upheld the defense of retaliatory eviction. 
 
"A number of states by statute have recognized the defense: Cal.C.C. 
Sec. 1942.5; Conn.Gen.St.Ann., Sec. 42-540a [Supp.1969]; Del.Ch. 25 Sec. 
5917 [Supp.1971]; Ha.Ch. 666 Sec. 43 [Supp.1971]; Ill.Rev.St.Ch. 80, Sec. 
71 [Supp.1971]; Me.Rev.St. Tit. 14 Sec. 6001, 6002; Md.Laws Ch. 687 
Sec. 9-10 [Supp.1971]; Mass.Comp.Laws Ann., Ch. 186 Sec. 18 
[Supp.1970]; Mich.Comp.Laws Ann., Ch. 600, Sec. 5646 [Am'd P.S.1969]; 
Minn.Stat.Ch. 240 Sec. 566.03 [Supp.1971]; N.J.Stat.Ann. 2A Sec. 42-
10.10; N.Y. [McKinney's] Unconsolidated Laws, Tit. 23 Sec. 8590, 8609 
[Supp.1971]; Pa.St.Ann.Ch. 35, Sec. 1700-1 (Supp.1971]; R.I. Gen.Laws 
 
 
15 
397 F2d 687 (DC Cir 1968).  In that case, the court held that, although a landlord is 
1 
entitled to "evict for any legal reason or for no reason at all," the landlord may not "evict 
2 
in retaliation for his tenant's report of housing code violations to the authorities."  Id. at 
3 
699.  The court explained that implementation of the District of Columbia housing codes 
4 
depends on private individuals taking initiative and reporting violations.  Therefore, the 
5 
court reasoned, permitting the eviction of tenants who make such reports would frustrate 
6 
the codes' effectiveness and violate public policy.10  Id. at 699-701.  The court observed 
7 
that trial courts could determine the reason for a landlord's eviction in the same way that 
8 
they decide other questions of fact: 
9 
                                              
Ann. Sec. 34-20-10 [1968]. The legislatures of Maine, Massachusetts, New 
Jersey, Michigan, and Rhode Island also protect tenants from eviction if 
they have organized or become a member of a tenants' union or similar 
organization."  
Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act § 5-101 cmt (1972). 
 
 
By 1979, Black's Law Dictionary reflected the holdings in the cases cited in 
the comment.  It defined "retaliatory eviction" as an "[a]ct of landlord in commencing 
eviction proceedings against a tenant because of tenant's complaints, participation in 
tenant's union or like activities with which the landlord is not in agreement."  Black's Law 
Dictionary 1183 (5th ed 1979) (emphasis added).   
 
10 
The court cited other cases that had used a similar rationale in analogous 
circumstances.  See Edwards, 397 F2d at 699 n 38.  One of those cases was Petermann v. 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 174 Cal App 2d 184, 344 P2d 25 (1959).  In 
Petermann, a California Court of Appeal held that, although a plaintiff's employment was 
at-will, his employer was prohibited from firing him for refusing to give false testimony.  
This court also cited Petermann in Nees v. Hocks, 272 Or 210, 216, 536 P2d 512 (1975) 
(holding that, although the plaintiff's employment was at-will, her employer was 
precluded from firing her for serving on a jury). 
 
16 
"The question of permissible or impermissible purpose is one of fact for the 
1 
court or jury, and while such a determination is not easy, it is not 
2 
significantly different from problems with which the courts must deal in a 
3 
host of other contexts, such as when they must decide whether the 
4 
employer who discharges a worker has committed an unfair labor practice 
5 
because he has done so on account of the employee's union activities. * * * 
6 
There is no reason why similar factual judgments cannot be made by courts 
7 
and juries in the context of economic retaliation (against tenants by 
8 
landlords) for providing information to the government." 
9 
Id. at 702-03 (internal quotation marks and footnotes omitted).  
10 
 
 
Courts in a number of the other cases cited in the comment to Section 5-101 
11 
of the URLTA relied on Edwards in recognizing the equitable defense of "retaliatory 
12 
eviction."  One of those cases was Engler v. Capital Management Corporation, 112 NJ 
13 
Super 445, 271 A2d 615 (1970) (recognizing defense).  After the New Jersey Court 
14 
decided Engler, the New Jersey Legislature enacted a statute that adopted a similar 
15 
defense.  That statute prohibited a landlord from evicting a tenant as a "reprisal" for 
16 
specified tenant activities and created a rebuttable presumption of reprisal when the 
17 
landlord evicted a tenant within 90 days of such activities.  See NJ Stat Ann § 2A:42-
18 
10.10, 2A:42-10.12.  The New Jersey Supreme Court construed that statute in Silberg v. 
19 
Lipscomb, 117 NJ Super 491, 285 A2d 86 (1971), also cited in the comment to the 
20 
Uniform Act.   
21 
 
 
In Silberg, the landlord argued that it had given the tenants notice of 
22 
eviction because, after learning that the tenants had formed an association and had 
23 
complained about the condition of the premises, the landlord had decided to subdivide the 
24 
property and sell the houses as two-family units.  Silberg, 117 NJ Super at 493.  The 
25 
landlord testified that, although the work necessary to prepare the premises for 
26 
 
17 
subdivision could occur while the tenants occupied their dwellings, he had decided that 
1 
the cost of proceeding in that way was prohibitive and therefore had evicted the tenants.  
2 
The court found that the tenants had failed to establish any "actual malice or hostility 
3 
toward them as the basis for the landlord's eviction proceedings."  Id. at 494.  
4 
Nevertheless, the court concluded, the tenant had established "reprisal" as that term was 
5 
used in the statute.  Although the court was satisfied that the "dominant" reason for the 
6 
landlord's decision was the cost of the contemplated work, the court also found that the 
7 
landlord had prepared the notices of eviction before he had decided the full nature and 
8 
extent of the work and that he had not actually weighed the possibility of performing the 
9 
work with the tenants in possession.  Id. at 495.  Therefore, the court was not satisfied 
10 
that, but for the tenants' action, "further and more complete consideration by the landlord 
11 
would not have taken place."  The court held that  
12 
"where a landlord, in reaching a decision to evict a tenant, considers as one 
13 
of the factors favoring that decision the activities of the tenant described in 
14 
[the statute], then the notice to quit is a 'reprisal' within the meaning of the 
15 
act, although other factors may also be present or even dominant."   
16 
Id. at 496.  Because the landlord had acted within 90 days of the tenants' protected 
17 
activity, the landlord could overcome the presumption of retaliation only on a showing 
18 
that "the decision to evict was reached independent[ly] of any consideration of the 
19 
activities of the tenants protected by the statute."  That, the court concluded, the landlord 
20 
 
18 
had failed to do.11  Id. 
1 
 
 
The next year, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform 
2 
State Laws adopted the URLTA, which, as noted, prohibited landlords from "retaliat[ing] 
3 
by" taking specified actions "after" a tenant engaged in certain protected activities and 
4 
also included a "disputable presumption" of retaliation if the landlord's action followed 
5 
the tenant's within one year.  When they adopted that framework, the drafters were 
6 
cognizant not only of the New Jersey statute, but also of the "retaliatory eviction" statutes 
7 
that had been enacted in other states, as evidenced by the fact that the drafters cited those 
8 
statutes in the comment to Section 5-101 of the Uniform Act.   
9 
 
 
A review of the statutes cited in the comment to Section 5-101 of the 
10 
URLTA indicates that state legislatures had taken various approaches to the problem of 
11 
retaliatory eviction.  Statutes in Minnesota and Rhode Island prohibited a landlord from 
12 
taking action "intended as a penalty" for a tenant's protected activities.  Minn Stat § 
13 
566.03 (1971); RI Gen Laws Ann 34-20-10 (1968).  A Connecticut statute made it 
14 
unlawful for a landlord to take action "solely because" the tenant attempted to lawfully 
15 
remedy a housing condition.  Conn Gen Stat Ann § 19-375a (1958).  A California statute 
16 
precluded a landlord from gaining possession of a dwelling unit if the landlord's 
17 
"dominant purpose" was retaliation against the tenant.  Cal Civ Code § 1942.5 (1970).  
18 
                                              
 
11 
In reaching its conclusion, the court also cited E & E Newman, Inc., 116 NJ 
Super 220, 281 A2d 544 (1971), another of the cases cited in the URLTA comment. 
 
19 
An Illinois statute stated that it was a violation of state public policy for a landlord to 
1 
terminate a tenancy "on the ground that" the tenant had complained of a code violation.  
2 
Ill Rev Stat ch 80, para 71 (1963).  And a New York statute prohibited the landlord from 
3 
acting "because" of the tenant's protected activity.  NY McKinney's Unconsol Laws, § 
4 
8590 (1971).  Like the New Jersey statute, other statutes cited in the official comment 
5 
simply prohibited retaliation and included a presumption that retaliation had occurred 
6 
when the landlord's action took place within a specified period after the tenant's protected 
7 
activity.  See, e.g., 1969 Md Laws page no 1469; Mass Gen Laws Ann, ch 186 § 18 
8 
(1969).   
9 
 
 
Aware of those differing approaches, the drafters of the URLTA chose as 
10 
its template a formulation close to the one that the New Jersey Legislature had adopted.  
11 
We therefore conclude that the drafters of the Uniform Act deliberately chose not to 
12 
include a requirement, such as that included in the Minnesota statute, that the landlord 
13 
intend its action as a penalty for the tenant's conduct.  Instead, the drafters chose to 
14 
require proof that the landlord had "retaliate[d] by" taking action after a tenant engaged in 
15 
protected activity, consistent with the New Jersey formulation.  The New Jersey Supreme 
16 
Court had decided that the New Jersey statute did not require proof of a landlord's 
17 
"malice or hostility."  If the URLTA framers had wanted to include such a requirement in 
18 
their "retaliatory eviction" defense, it is likely that they would have done so explicitly or 
19 
used an alternative formulation that more clearly incorporated that concept.   
20 
 
 
As noted, when the Oregon Legislature enacted ORS 90.385 in 1973, it 
21 
adopted Section 5-101 of the URLTA nearly verbatim and had before it the URLTA 
22 
 
20 
comment to that section.  See Testimony, House Committee on Local Government and 
1 
Urban Affairs, SB 159, Feb 21, 1973 (letter from Charles R. Williamson to Senator 
2 
Burns); Testimony, House Committee on Local Government and Urban Affairs, SB 159, 
3 
Feb 21, 1973 (letter from Charles R. Williamson to Senator Anthony Meeker).  We 
4 
therefore conclude that the Oregon Legislature's original intent was consistent with the 
5 
intent of the drafters of the URLTA; when the Oregon Legislature used the word 
6 
"retaliate" in ORS 90.385, it did not intend to invoke the ancient concept of "lex talionis."  
7 
 
 
The legislature's amendment of the ORLTA in 1979 and its deletion of the 
8 
disputable presumption does not change our conclusion.12  The legislative history of that 
9 
amendment is accurately set out in Elk Creek I, 244 Or App at 388-89, and is further 
10 
discussed in Elk Creek II, 247 Or App at 580.  Before the amendment, the disputable 
11 
presumption allowed the tenant to shift the burden of persuasion to the landlord so that 
12 
the landlord was required to prove that its action, if taken within six months of the 
13 
tenant's protected activity, was not retaliatory.  Former ORS 91.865(2) (1973), amended 
14 
by Or Laws 1979, ch 643, § 1.  Under the current statute, the tenant no longer can shift 
15 
the burden of proof to the landlord.  That does not mean, however, that the tenant must 
16 
now prove that the landlord suffered injury and intended injury in return.  As amended, 
17 
ORS 90.385 continues to require a tenant to demonstrate that the landlord acted because 
18 
of a tenant's engagement in protected activity. 
19 
                                              
 
12 
Or Laws 1979, ch 643, § 1. 
 
21 
 
 
Our review of the Oregon legislature's use of the word "retaliate" or 
1 
"retaliation" in other statutes confirms that interpretation.  The legislature commonly uses 
2 
those words throughout the Oregon Revised Statutes without any indication that they 
3 
impose a requirement that the party asserting retaliation must prove that he or she caused 
4 
actual or perceived injury or that the other party acted with an intent to injure in return.  
5 
Instead, the legislature commonly uses those words in conjunction with the word 
6 
"because" or other words that require a causal connection between one party's acts and 
7 
another party's protected activity.  For example, ORS 441.174(1) provides that "[a] 
8 
hospital may not take retaliatory action against a nursing staff because the nursing staff * 
9 
* * files a * * * complaint" regarding unsafe care, and ORS 659A.082(2)(c) provides that 
10 
"[i]t is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against a person 
11 
because of the person's [military] service * * * by * * * retaliating against the person for 
12 
exercising or attempting to exercise" the person's rights as a servicemember.13  
13 
                                              
 
13 
See also ORS 441.172(6) (defining "[r]etaliatory action" as conduct taken 
"as a result of" a nursing staff's filing of a complaint); ORS 25.337(2) (same for person 
making child medical support payments); ORS 774.140(1) (prohibiting utilities from 
retaliating against consumers "because" of a consumer's participation in the Citizens' 
Utility Board); ORS 430.673(3) (prohibiting counties from retaliating against community 
mental health programs and community developmental disabilities programs "because" a 
program attempts to mediate a dispute between the program and a county); ORS 
621.730(3) (prohibiting participants in the milk industry from retaliating against milk 
producers "because" a producer requests official testing of milk); ORS 659A.096(2) 
(prohibiting employers from retaliating against servicemembers "because" a 
servicemember requests military family leave); ORS 659A.183(2) (same for employee's 
request for family leave); ORS 659A.277 (same for employee's request for leave to deal 
with domestic violence issues); ORS 659A.290(2)(b) (same for employee's status as 
 
 
22 
(Emphases added.)  Although none of those statutes prohibits retaliation by landlords, 
1 
other statutes that do pertain to landlords prohibit them from taking specified actions 
2 
against a tenant "because" of the tenant's protected status or activity.  For example, ORS 
3 
659A.145 prohibits a landlord from discriminating "because" of a disability of a tenant by 
4 
expelling the tenant or by refusing to permit reasonable accommodations necessary to the 
5 
tenant's use and enjoyment of the property.14  Similarly, ORS 90.449 prohibits a landlord 
6 
                                              
victim of domestic violence); ORS 659A.318 (same for employee's having or seeking 
theology degree); ORS 185.170 (prohibiting employers from retaliating against Oregon 
Disabilities Commission members "for" member's giving of testimony to legislature); 
ORS 659A.312(3) (prohibiting employers from retaliating against employees "for" 
requesting leave to donate bone marrow); ORS 441.127(2) (prohibiting employers from 
retaliating against employees "for" reporting problems at long term care facilities); ORS 
659A.199(1) (making it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer to * * * 
retaliate against an employee * * * for the reason that the employee has in good faith 
reported information that the employee believes is evidence of a violation of a state or 
federal law, rule or regulation"); ORS 659A.230(1) (same for reporting crimes); ORS 
659A.233 (same for reporting violations of certain state statutes); ORS 659A.259(1) 
(same for complaints about employee housing). 
 
14 
ORS 659A.145(2) provides, in part: 
 
"A person may not discriminate because of a disability of a 
purchaser, a disability of an individual residing in or intending to reside in a 
dwelling after it is sold, rented or made available or a disability of any 
individual associated with a purchaser by doing any of the following: 
 
"(a)  Refusing to sell, lease, rent or otherwise make available any 
real property to a purchaser. 
 
"(b)  Expelling a purchaser. 
 
"* * * * *  
 
"(f)  Refusing to permit, at the expense of the individual with a 
 
 
23 
from terminating a tenancy "because" the tenant is a domestic violence victim.15  We 
1 
believe that ORS 90.385 requires a similar causal connection between the landlord's 
2 
prohibited action and the tenant's protected activity; the legislature did not use the word 
3 
"retaliate" to impose additional requirements that the landlord suffer actual or perceived 
4 
injury or intend harm in return.   
5 
 
 
 A question remains, however, about the height of the causal bar that the 
6 
Oregon Legislature requires Oregon tenants to clear.  Did the Oregon Legislature intend 
7 
to require tenants to prove that a tenant's protected activity was the sole reason for the 
8 
landlord's action, or did it intend to impose some other causal standard?  As noted, the 
9 
drafters of both the URLTA and the ORLTA chose a statutory framework similar to the 
10 
New Jersey framework and declined to expressly require, as Connecticut and California 
11 
had, that the tenant prove that the tenant's protected activity was the "sole" or "dominant" 
12 
reason for the landlord's prohibited action.  It is therefore likely that the drafters did not 
13 
intend to impose either of those more strictly stated causal requirements.  
14 
                                              
disability, reasonable modifications of existing premises * * * necessary to 
afford the individual full enjoyment of the premises." 
 
15 
ORS 90.499 provides, in part: 
 
"(1)  A landlord may not terminate or fail to renew a tenancy, serve a 
notice  
to terminate a tenancy, bring or threaten to bring an action for 
possession, increase rent, decrease services or refuse to enter into a rental 
agreement:  
 
"(a)  Because a tenant or applicant is, or has been, a victim of 
domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking." 
 
24 
 
 
That conclusion also is apparent when we consider another provision of 
1 
both the URLTA and the ORLTA:  a section providing that, "notwithstanding" the 
2 
prohibition against retaliation, "a landlord may bring an action for possession" when 
3 
certain other circumstances are present.  Those circumstances include when a tenant is in 
4 
default in rent and when "compliance with the applicable building or housing code 
5 
requires alteration, remodeling, or demolition which would effectively deprive the tenant 
6 
of use of the dwelling unit."  URLTA § 5.101(c);16 ORS 90.385(4).17  If the drafters had 
7 
                                              
 
16 
URLTA § 5.101(c) provides: 
 
"Notwithstanding [the anti retaliation provisions], a landlord may 
bring an action for possession if: 
 
"(1)  the violation of the applicable building or housing code was 
caused primarily by lack of reasonable care by the tenant, a member of his 
family, or other person on the premises with his consent; or 
 
"(2)  the tenant is in default in rent; or 
 
"(3) compliance with the applicable building or housing code 
requires alteration, remodeling, or demolition which would effectively 
deprive the tenant of use of the dwelling unit." 
 
17 
ORS 90.385(4) provides:   
 
"Notwithstanding [the anti retaliation provisions], a landlord may 
bring an action for possession if: 
 
"(a) The complaint by the tenant was made to the landlord or an 
agent of the landlord in an unreasonable manner or at an unreasonable time 
or was repeated in a manner having the effect of unreasonably harassing the 
landlord.  A determination whether the manner, time or effect of a 
complaint was unreasonable shall include consideration of all related 
circumstances preceding or contemporaneous to the complaint; 
 
 
25 
intended to require the tenant to prove that his or her protected activity was the sole 
1 
reason for a landlord's decision to evict the tenant, then the "notwithstanding" provision 
2 
would have been unnecessary. 
3 
 
 
We believe that the legislature instead intended to require a tenant to prove 
4 
that the tenant's protected activity was a factor that made a difference in the landlord's 
5 
decision.  As noted, that requirement is consistent with the New Jersey Supreme Court's 
6 
interpretation of the New Jersey statute used as a format for the URLTA and the ORLTA, 
7 
and, as we will explain, that requirement also is consistent with this court's articulation of 
8 
causal requirements in other contexts.   
9 
 
 
In 1973, when the ORLTA was enacted, this court used the "substantial 
10 
factor" test to determine the "cause in fact" of a plaintiff's injuries.  See Stewart v. 
11 
Jefferson Plywood Co., 255 Or 603, 606, 469 P2d 783 (1970) (using "substantial factor" 
12 
to describe "cause in fact" requirement); Babler Bros. v. Pac. Intermountain, 244 Or 459, 
13 
463, 415 P2d 735 (1966) (noting that, in most negligence cases, "the factual inquiry 
14 
                                              
 
"(b) The violation of the applicable building or housing code was 
caused primarily by lack of reasonable care by the tenant or other person in 
the household of the tenant or upon the premises with the consent of the 
tenant; 
 
"(c) The tenant was in default in rent at the time of the service of the 
notice upon which the action is based; or 
 
"(d) Compliance with the applicable building or housing code 
requires alteration, remodeling or demolition which would effectively 
deprive the tenant of use of the dwelling unit." 
 
26 
whether the actor's conduct was a substantial factor in producing the harm is relatively 
1 
uncomplicated"); Dewey v. A.F. Klaveness & Co., 233 Or 515, 541, 379 P2d 560 (1963) 
2 
(phrasing the causation standard as whether the defendant's conduct was a "substantial 
3 
factor" in physically producing the injury).  Since then, this court has recognized that, in 
4 
most cases, the "substantial factor" test yields the same result as the "but for" test of 
5 
causation.  In Joshi v. Providence Health System, 342 Or 152, 161, 149 P3d 1164 (2006), 
6 
the court described the "but for" test as follows:  "The defendant's conduct is a cause of 
7 
the event if the event would not have occurred but for that conduct; conversely, the 
8 
defendant's conduct is not a cause of the event, if the event would have occurred without 
9 
it."  The court explained, however, that the "but for" test fails where "two causes concur 
10 
to bring about an event, and either one of them, operating alone, would have been 
11 
sufficient to cause the identical result[.]"  In that situation, the court reasoned, "[the] 
12 
defendant's conduct is a cause of the event if it was a material element and a substantial 
13 
factor in bringing it about."  Id.  
14 
 
 
We conclude that when the legislature enacted ORS 90.385, it intended that 
15 
trial courts test causation in the same way that they do in other contexts.  As the D.C. 
16 
Circuit Court remarked in Edwards, the reason for a landlord's decision to evict is a 
17 
question of fact for a court or jury that is not significantly different from other questions 
18 
of fact that those fact-finders confront in other areas of the law.  Edwards, 397 F2d at 
19 
702-03.  We conclude that ORS 90.385 requires a tenant to prove that, "but for" the 
20 
tenant's protected activity, the landlord would not have made the decision that it did.  In 
21 
the circumstance in which, as described in Joshi, two causes concur, but either operating 
22 
 
27 
alone would have been sufficient to cause the result, a tenant also may prevail by proving 
1 
that the tenant's protected activity was a "material and substantial factor" in the landlord's 
2 
decision.  The tenant need not prove that the tenant's protected activity was the "sole" or 
3 
"dominant" reason for the landlord's decision. 
4 
 
 
Having construed ORS 90.385, we now must determine its effect on the 
5 
judgment in this case.  The trial court's relevant findings and reasoning were as follows:  
6 
The tenants complained to the owner about the electrical system, and the tenants' 
7 
complaints were one of the reasons that the owner decided to do the initial walk-through 
8 
of the premises.  The owner then decided to do a second walk-through accompanied by 
9 
an electrician.  It was apparent to the owner that electrical repairs were necessary and 
10 
would entail some cost.  The next afternoon, the manager called the tenants and informed 
11 
them that the owner had decided to terminate their lease.  The following day, the manager 
12 
delivered a notice of termination to the tenants, stating that "[the owner] has several 
13 
repairs including updating the electrical."  There was no evidence of any other reason for 
14 
the termination of the tenancy.  
15 
 
 
Although the trial court decided that the tenants' complaints were one of the 
16 
reasons that the owner decided to conduct the initial walk-through, the court did not 
17 
explicitly decide whether the tenants' complaints also were one of the reasons that the 
18 
owner decided to serve the notice of termination; the trial court speculated that the owner 
19 
 
28 
may have given that notice for other "valid business reasons."18  Without explicitly 
1 
elaborating on what those "valid business reasons" may have been, the trial court 
2 
discussed whether the tenants had inflicted harm on the owner and whether the owner had 
3 
attempted to harm the tenants by terminating their tenancy.  The court observed that the 
4 
owner had spent considerable sums on repairs in the past and described the conduct of 
5 
both parties as "innocuous."  However, as we have explained, whether the owner was 
6 
thankful, threatened, or neutral when the tenants notified her of electrical problems, and 
7 
whether the owner considered the costs of improving the electrical system injurious or 
8 
simply necessary, ORS 90.385 prohibited the owner from serving the tenants with notice 
9 
of termination because of the tenants' complaints.19  If the tenants' complaints were one 
10 
of the factors that the owner considered in making her decision to evict, and the owner 
11 
would not have made that decision "but for" the tenant's complaints, then the owner was 
12 
prohibited from making that decision.  That is true even if there also were other factors 
13 
that the owner considered in arriving at her conclusion.  If the owner had two different, 
14 
independent reasons for deciding to evict the tenants, and either alone would have caused 
15 
                                              
 
18 
The trial court stated in a footnote that it was not possible to infer that 
"tenancy termination would never had occurred but for [tenants'] complaints" and that it 
thought it "more reasonable that [the owner] was terminating for valid business reasons,  
* * * but even this supposition is at best subject to speculation." 
 
19 
That does not mean, of course, that a tenant is precluded from offering 
available evidence that a landlord experienced or perceived injury and acted in anger and 
with ill-will in return as probative of causation.  See Shockey v. City of Portland, 313 Or 
414, 423, 837 P2d 505 (1992) (considering such evidence in deciding whether plaintiff 
met burden of proof in employment context). 
 
29 
the owner to make the decision to evict, the owner also was prohibited from deciding to 
1 
do so if the tenant's protected activity was one of those independent reasons.    
2 
 
 
In applying that test, it is important to recognize that a landlord has a 
3 
statutory obligation to maintain leased premises in a habitable condition.  ORS 90.320.   
4 
The landlord therefore is required to make the repairs that are necessary to fulfill that 
5 
obligation and to pay their associated cost.  The repairs and their associated costs are not 
6 
logically related to the tenant's occupancy except, of course, if the repairs are so extensive 
7 
that they cannot be made while the dwelling is occupied.  ORS 90.385(4)(d) recognizes 
8 
that logic and permits a landlord to evict a tenant where compliance with the applicable 
9 
building or housing code requires alteration, remodeling, or demolition which would 
10 
effectively deprive the tenant of use of the dwelling unit.  Except in that instance, the fact 
11 
that repairs and their associated cost are statutorily compelled means that they cannot be a 
12 
lawful reason for a landlord's decision to evict a tenant; or, said another way, the cost of 
13 
statutory compliance cannot be a legitimate reason for a landlord to take a statutorily 
14 
prohibited act against a tenant who exercises a statutorily protected right. 
15 
 
 
That does not mean, of course, that a landlord must continue to lease 
16 
property that it owns or that a landlord always is prohibited from evicting a tenant after 
17 
the tenant complains about the condition of a dwelling.  For example, if the landlord 
18 
offers evidence that it made the decision to serve a notice of termination for some reason 
19 
unrelated to the tenant's complaint, such as that the tenant failed to pay rent or violated 
20 
other terms of the lease, or that it made its decision to evict before the tenant complained, 
21 
a factfinder may conclude that the tenant's complaint was not a factor that made a 
22 
 
30 
difference in the landlord's decision.   
1 
 
 
In this case, the trial court could have inferred, from the temporal 
2 
connection between the tenants' complaint and the owner's decision to evict them, that the 
3 
tenants' complaints made a difference in the owner's decision.  However, the trial court 
4 
did not do so and instead speculated that the owner may have had other "valid business 
5 
reasons" for her action.  Although the record does not reveal any such reasons, we 
6 
hesitate to decide what conclusion the trial court would have reached had it applied the 
7 
correct legal standard.  We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings 
8 
consistent with this decision.   
9 
 
 
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The judgment of the 
10 
circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further 
11 
proceedings. 
12