Imperial Colliery Co. v. Fout Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 1988. Facts: Danny Fout (defendant) was a coal miner employed by Milburn Colliery (Milburn) and was engaged in a labor strike against the company. Prior to and during the strike, Fout leased a house from Imperial Colliery Company (Imperial) (plaintiff). Fout signed a written lease with one of Imperial's agents in June 1983; the lease provided for a primary term of one month and stated that the lease could be terminated by either party upon one month's notice. In February 1986, Imperial told Fout that his lease would be terminated at the end of March 1986. Fout's attorney advised Imperial in a letter that Fout was not able to move out as of that date, and Imperial agreed to a two-month extension of the lease. Fout's attorney asked for a further extension, but Imperial eventually brought suit for possession of the property. Procedural History: Fout alleged that Milburn and Imperial were interrelated companies and asserted a defense of retaliatory eviction because of Fout's participation in the strike against Milburn. The trial court granted Imperial's motion for summary judgment. The court noted that a retaliatory-eviction defense must relate to the tenant's exercise of his rights as tenant and found that Fout's participation in the strike was unrelated to his tenancy. The court awarded possession of the property to Imperial, and Fout appealed. Issue: Can the defense of retaliatory eviction be raised if the reason for eviction is unrelated to activities of the tenant that are incidental to the tenancy? Holding: No, a retaliatory-eviction defense must relate to activities that are incidental to the tenancy. Reasoning: A tenant may bring a defense of retaliatory eviction in response to a landlord's eviction proceeding. However, a retaliatory-eviction defense must relate to activities of the tenant that are incidental to the tenancy. Traditionally, the retaliatoryeviction defense protected a tenant's right to complain about unfit conditions relating to the habitability of the property, so that the tenant could have the protective benefit of health and safety statutes without fear of retribution from the landlord. This original protection has been expanded to include a tenant's other conduct relating to the tenancy, such as attempting to organize with other tenants to protect their rights as tenants or making complaints directly against the landlord through petitions or other communications. In this case, Fout’s participation in the Milburn strike is completely unrelated to his status as a tenant in Imperial's house or the habitability of the premises. His rights of speech and association in the context of the strike do not arise from the tenancy relationship. There may be other causes of action that Fout could pursue to protect these rights, but retaliatory eviction is not one of them. Accordingly, Imperial’s eviction notice cannot be said to be retaliation for Fout’s participation in the strike. The lower court's judgment is affirmed.