## Facts

- A property manager, acting for the owner of a residential rental property, rented the premises to tenants under a written month-to-month agreement.
- Before May 19, 2009, the tenants made general complaints to the owner about the property’s electrical system.
- The property manager separately observed a bent service mast and became concerned about the electrical service.
- On May 19, 2009, the landlord provided written notice of an owner-requested walk-through to inspect the breaker box and bathroom floor.
- After a later walk-through on June 16 with a licensed electrician, the electrician recommended electrical repairs that would cost the owner money.
- The next day, the landlord served the tenants a 30-day no-cause notice to terminate, stating that repairs (including electrical repairs) were needed.
- The tenants did not vacate; the landlord filed an action for possession.
- The tenants asserted a defense under ORS 90.385, alleging the termination notice was retaliatory because it was served due to their complaints about the electrical system.

## Issues

1. Under ORS 90.385, must a tenant prove that a landlord acted with an “injury-for-injury” intent (i.e., that the landlord felt harmed by the tenant’s complaint and intended to harm the tenant in return), or is it enough to prove the landlord’s adverse action was taken because of the tenant’s protected complaint?

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reversed the circuit court’s judgment for the landlord.
- The court held that ORS 90.385 requires the tenant to prove the landlord served the termination notice because of the tenant’s protected complaint.
- The court held the tenant need not prove the complaint caused the landlord actual or perceived injury or that the landlord intended to cause the tenant equivalent injury.
- The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings under the correct standard.

## Legal Principles

- ORS 90.385 retaliation is established by showing a causal link: the landlord took a statutorily prohibited action because of the tenant’s protected activity.
- The statute does not require proof of a subjective intent to punish the tenant or proof that the tenant’s conduct “injured” the landlord.
- Statutory interpretation depends on text, context, and legislative history; dictionary definitions cannot supply extra elements inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
- Where a statute is modeled on uniform-law language and the drafters deliberately omitted an intent-to-injure requirement, courts should not reinsert that requirement.

## Conclusion

ORS 90.385 does not impose a lex-talionis intent element; a tenant’s retaliation defense turns on whether the landlord would have taken the challenged action but for the tenant’s protected complaint, requiring reversal when lower courts apply a stricter intent-to-injure standard.


Elk Creek Mgmt. Co. v. Gilbert, 353 Or. 565, 303 P.3d 929 (Or. 2013)