## Facts

- Lena Robinson rented a residence from Diamond Housing Corporation on a month-to-month basis beginning in 1968.
- The premises had substantial housing-code violations existing at the start of the tenancy (including unsafe porch/railings and a defective ceiling); the landlord agreed to repair but did not.
- In a prior nonpayment-of-rent possession action, Robinson successfully asserted that the lease was illegal and unenforceable because the premises were not safe and sanitary when rented.
- After that ruling, the landlord served Robinson with a 30-day notice to quit and, in December 1969, filed a new action for possession based on expiration of the notice.
- Robinson demanded a jury trial and claimed the new eviction effort was retaliatory, based on her prior assertion of housing-code-based rights.
- The landlord supported summary judgment with an affidavit stating Robinson was served, the landlord was unwilling to make repairs, and it did not wish to continue renting the premises.
- The trial court entered summary judgment for the landlord; the local appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the landlord’s stated intent to withdraw the unit from the rental market made a retaliation defense unavailable.
- Robinson sought federal appellate review, arguing she was entitled to litigate retaliatory motive despite the landlord’s stated intent.

## Issues

1. Whether a landlord who failed to evict for nonpayment because the tenant successfully asserted a housing-code illegality defense may then obtain possession by serving a 30-day notice without allowing litigation of alleged retaliatory motive.
2. Whether the retaliatory-eviction defense applies when the tenant’s protected activity is asserting housing-code-based rights in court rather than complaining to housing authorities.
3. Whether the landlord’s asserted intent to withdraw the premises from the rental market is conclusive at the summary-judgment stage when the tenant alleges retaliation.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the judgment for the landlord and remanded.
- The court held that a retaliatory-eviction defense may be asserted against a 30-day notice served after the tenant successfully invoked housing-code illegality to defeat a prior eviction attempt.
- The court rejected limiting retaliatory-eviction protection to situations involving tenant complaints to housing authorities.
- The court ruled that the tenant must be permitted to attempt to prove retaliatory motive; the landlord’s affidavit of intent to discontinue renting was not dispositive on summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A tenant may defend against an otherwise lawful termination when the landlord’s motive is retaliation for the tenant’s exercise of legally protected housing-related rights.
- Protected activity includes asserting housing-code-based defenses in court, not only reporting code violations to administrative authorities.
- A landlord cannot avoid scrutiny under retaliatory-eviction doctrine by switching from a failed nonpayment action to a 30-day notice following the tenant’s successful assertion of housing-code protections.
- When retaliation is plausibly alleged, motive ordinarily presents a fact question that should not be resolved solely by the landlord’s stated reasons at the summary-judgment stage.

## Conclusion

The court required that alleged retaliatory motive be open to proof when a landlord serves a 30-day notice after a tenant prevails on a housing-code illegality defense, preventing use of termination formalities to defeat anti-retaliation protections and remanding for factual determination of intent.


Robinson v. Diamond Hous. Corp., 463 F.2d 853 (D.C. Cir. 1972)