t

LOCAL NEWS

Local Palimony Case Encouraging

By Mary Walsh

The concept of "palimony"-support of the economically dependent party by the other after the separation of two unmarried people who have been living together-is a new one in American jurisprudence, and has not yet been accepted by a majority of the states, including Ohio. However, legal concepts change much more slowly than do the societal values which they reflect, and the palimony theory is currently being litigated in almost every state that has not yet accepted it. It is safe to speculate that as more and more people live together without marriage, courts will gradually come to accept that the dependent party in a non-marital relationship is entitled to support based on compensation for her/his services while the parties cohabited.

Although Ohio has traditionally been rather backward in its acceptance of new legal theories, the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court recently gave women an encouraging sign when it refused to dismiss a "palimony" action on the basis of current Ohio law, implying that a cause of action does exist for a woman in a palimony situation.

Rose, the plaintiff in the suit, had lived with the defendant since November of 1974. During their relationship, he got her an apartment and moved in with her, bought her furniture, paid the bills and introduced her as his wife on business trips. A son was born to them in 1978. Throughout this period, the defendant was married to another woman; a divorce was granted to his wife in early 1979. Rose and the defendant separated in December of 1978, although he continued to support Rose and their son until she filed suit against him on March 29, 1979.

Since the defendant was already married, and

because Rose's claim was for contract rather than marital rights, suit was not filed in the Domestic Relations Division of the court, but in the regular civil court. Rose's complaint was based on two theories: 1) that she and the defendant had entered into an oral contract whereby she would perform numerous social, economic and psychological benefits, other than "meretricious sexual relations,"

and he would support her and their son in the style to which he had accustomed them; and 2) that she performed cooking, cleaning and other services for him while they lived together for which he had failed to compensate her, resulting in his unjust enrichment. She asked for lifelong support for herself, support for their son until he reached age 18, and $150,000 compensation for her services performed over the years they lived together. A claim was also filed on behalf of her son, alleging that the defendant had agreed to pay the expenses of his birth and to support

CWW v. NCB: Both Claim Victory

By Marycatherine Krause

On March 20, 1981, the shareholders of National City Corporation, holding company of National City Bank, rejected a resolution that would have required the bank to disclose its employment policies and practices. Proposed by the United Church Board of World Ministries, social action arm of the United Church of Christ, the resolution requested specific information on salary scales, promotion opportunities and job distribution among NCB's women and minority employees.

The Plain Dealer (April 21, 1981) reported that 95 percent of the stockholders rejected this proposal. However, NCB's own figures reveal that of the 5,230,597 shares represented at the Annual Shareholders' Meeting, either by proxy or in person, 4,558,508, or 87 percent, voted against the resolution, while 264,201, or 5 percent, were in favor of it and 408,494, or 8 percent, abstained.

This is no mean quibble over numbers. Andrea Gundersen, a staff organizer for Cleveland Women Working, pointed out that yes votes and abstentions totalled approximately 13 percent of the stockholders represented. This suggests that a significant minority have hesitations about the effects of the bank's employment policies and practices on women and minorities. It should also be pointed out that among NCB's largest stockholders are other banks, clearly reluctant to have their own employment policies revealed. Thus, although the vote was portrayed as an overwhelming defeat of the resolution, Gundersen called it a victory for CWW, now in the third year of its campaign to improve employment opportunities.. for women and minorities in the banking industry.

Page 2/What She Wants/May, 1981

CWW hoped to secure only 3 percent of the shareholders' votes, the number required for automatic reintroduction of the resolution at the 1982 Annual Shareholders' Meeting.

Significant too was NCB's attempt to defend its employment policies and practices. Previously, bank officials have refused comment on the Labor Department investigation of NCB, now under way as a result of CWW's 1978 efforts to force disclosure of NCB employment information. Gundersen also noted that NCB President J. Robert Killpack devoted ten minutes of the Annual Meeting to attacking CWW's reputation rather than debating the economic facts of employment for women and minorities at NCB:

"Now why does CWW or any organization disseminate patently false or out-of-context statements? The answer is, in our judgment, in my judgment, a responsible organization does not. Why does an organization risk the very cause it advocates, equal employment opportunity for women and minorities, and its own public credibility, by disseminating patently false statements? In my judgment, the answer is, a responsible organization does not. Working to improve opportunities for women and minorities is certainly a worthy objective. We all have it. But that can be done with facts. Maybe there is a different objective in this organization. The question as to whether the stated objective, and a.worthy one it is, is expendable so that a hidden objective might be pursued...."

CWW has always been ready and willing to debate the facts.

him, but had breached that agreement. Rose also sought to restrain the defendant from disposing of his assets, including stocks, real estate and savings accounts, prior to judgment.

In response, the defendant asked the court to dismiss the complaint against him. He argued three points, all consistent with the present law of Ohio: 1) that the complaint was a thinly disguised claim for alimony, to which Rose was not entitled because they were not married; 2) that the contract alleged by Rose was illegal because it was based on "meretricious sexual relations," and 3) that the alleged contract involved an adulterous relationship and was thus unenforceable since adultery is against "public policy”. He also asked that his son's claim against him be dismissed because an infant may not enter into a contract on his own behalf, and the boy was too young to appoint Rose as his agent to act for him. Finaly, he asked the court not to freeze his assets, stating that Rose had not demonstrated the necessary "irreparable injury" which would result to her if such drastic action was not taken.

To counter these arguments, Rose's attorney pointed out that the laws in Ohio have recently undergone changes which take note of the "new morality" and reflect a new public policy, recognizing that adults and children who are dependents (continued on page 10)

TBN Calls for Help

By Kathy Bickmore

In each of the last two years, Cleveland women have taken to the streets en masse one night in August to protest violence against women. Last year's Cleveland Women Take Back the Night march resulted in, among other things, the formation of an ongoing committee. This year the committee has worked primarily for better security for women on the RTA system. The Take Back the Night (TBN) committee has now broadened its focus to include pornography, images of women in advertising, and a possible third annual TBN march.

If there is to be a Women Take Back the Night march this summer (or fall), Cleveland women must volunteer their time, energy, and creativity to make it happen. Without some new womanenergy, a Cleveland TBN march simply will not occur in 1981.

TBN meetings are Thursdays at 7:30 p.m. at CSU University Center, Room 364. They are open to all women (no experience necessary!). For more information, please call Louise at 641-9481 or Jan at 475-0075.

The Poor Get Poorer

Despite the persistent rise in the cost of living, Governor Rhodes' State Budget proposes no increase in Public Assistance payments for 1981 or 1982, and only a 5 percent increase for 1983. This is woefully inadequate. Present Aid to Dependent Children grants of $263 per month for a family of three are approximately 63 percent of the poverty standard set by the Ohio Department of Public Welfare. General Relief grants range from $118 to $134, or from 33 percent to 44 percent of the State poverty level standard of $262 per month for one person.

Write your state legislators to the effect that Public Assistance grants. (ADC and GR) in Ohio are inadequate to meet basic needs and should be raised to the 100 percent standard of minimum need now, and not to wait until 1983.