Jump to content


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nanushka

  1. It does sound farfetched. Is that what Waterbury is doing? Trying to "bring down" NYCB?
  2. nanushka

    New York City Ballet Fall Season

    The first and third week casting sheets seem to have been missing from the website all day — or, at least, the links on the "Casting" page haven't been working for me. (Week two has been there.) I get a page that says, "Sorry, the page you requested cannot be found."
  3. No problem, sorry for the confusion. I certainly don’t, but as I understand the process such evidence would typically not be presented until the discovery phase. I assume Waterbury has a lot of evidence — though perhaps not sufficient to support every claim. We’ll see (on not).
  4. I fail to see how any of that is relevant to the question of whether (as you asserted) “the lawsuit was written deliberately to invoke [evoke] this exact response” — i.e. the confusion of “student” and “former student.” Also, for (1) and (2) the company may well have had a heads up that the lawsuit/changes were coming, thus provoking their action. Your argument relies on the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy.
  5. And you may be right. My point was that you’ve as yet offered no real evidence to accompany your argument, making it a mere assertion.
  6. If it is misconstrued, that's hardly proof that... As @Helene points out, the use of the phrase is pretty clear in context. The lawyer can hardly be blamed if people misread — and even if he should've been clearer, that doesn't mean his failure to be so was ill-intentioned.
  7. I'd think it would go without saying that not everyone is going to do everything they can get away with — especially when we're talking about actions that many would agree are reprehensible.
  8. How can we judge whether the argument is specious without access to the evidence (which has not yet been presented)? ETA: To clarify, I believe the "bad acts" Waterbury accuses NYCB of knowing about and condoning are not (or not only) the acts committed directly against her. The company is accused of having known about and condoned much other behavior that, she claims, created an environment in which they felt they could do to her as they allegedly did. That argument doesn't depend on NYCB having seen or known about the specific text messages, etc. that are referred to in the case.
  9. This is how I read it as well. I don't recall anything from the complaint that suggests that, as @On Pointe puts it, "the company has a duty to monitor [its employees'] thoughts, communications and activities."
  10. Maybe, but not necessarily. I don’t know who his employer is, and it would depend on whether that employer has a habit of improperly tolerating abusive behavior that it is aware of or should be aware of. That’s what would make it “systemic,” and that’s what Waterbury seems to be alleging of NYCB. There are indeed cases of individual “bad apples,” much as that phrase gets abused. It’s possible that, at his workplace, Hall is such an individual. ETA: I don’t think Waterbury’s claim is that NYCB should have monitored the private behavior of all its employees. I think her claim is that they knew bad stuff was going on and had a habit of overlooking it. Again, that’s what made it allegedly a “systemic” problem.
  11. Waterbury's complaint does not seem to be primarily that NYCB failed to protect its dancers from every possible threat coming from inside or outside the company; it seems to be primarily that NYCB failed to stop (some of) its dancers from transgressing appropriate norms of behavior and from violating the rights of their colleagues and of other vulnerable individuals. In other words, NYCB (according to Waterbury) has a systemic issue because it allowed (some of) its dancers to get away with bad behavior. The appropriate parallel, it seems to me, would be if ABT implicitly or explicitly tolerated improper and harmful behavior by some of its dancers — not if ABT failed to protect its dancers from every possible threat. It seems more reasonable to me to criticize an institution for doing the former than for doing the latter.
  12. Personally, if I were changing in front of one or more people I generally feel the perfectly comfortable changing in front of, and if I discovered I had been surreptitiously photographed in that situation and that the photos had been shared with others, I would consider that a violation of my trust and autonomy in an intimate situation.
  13. Many rape victims, I would imagine, enjoy having sex in situations where their autonomy is not being violated. By this same logic, it seems to me, those particular victims might not find their violation unbelievably painful.
  14. nanushka

    Job posting for artistic director

    I don't get that sense. I think there's a sense of urgency to move forward with the search, to move things closer to resolution, but I don't get the sense that it would be a problem if the right candidate were to be ready to take on the role a year from now.
  15. Considering intra-organizational concerns is, by definition, not really PR.
  16. But it has not yet been established with any certainty that that makes the evidence uncovered in the search inadmissible in a civil proceeding. Again, Waterbury is not law enforcement, so I believe that she has more latitude to engage in such a search, particularly when Finlay has willingly given her access to his laptop (with, so far as we know, no verbal or other restrictions on what she could do with it).
  17. Thank you so much for sharing this, kellie!
  18. Mmm, yes, interesting, his use of the present tense may be significant. And actually, does he say that he didn't circulate them? He says he didn't circulate "the photos that were sent to me." He could have circulated other photos he took himself — of that "single consenting adult" whose photos he now possesses, or even of others if he has subsequently deleted them.
  19. True, and (forgive me, I've had trouble at times keeping all the details straight) is there any specific action Ramasar himself has been directly accused of that he explicitly denies in that post?
  20. I'm not sure we know exactly what Waterbury saw before she took any action to search further, though — and does "probable cause" really exist as a concept relating to the collection of evidence by private individuals in a civil case? I don't remember encountering the phrase outside the context of evidence collection by legal/governmental authorities.
  21. Well, certainly many of us might agree with that as a notion, but the question of whether he would actually have grounds to successfully invoke it as a bar to the admissibility of evidence in a civil case is a rather different question. I have doubts that he would, though, and I still do after a quick skim of the article posted by @KayDenmark. (Thanks for finding that.) I'd be interested to hear from any lawyers, or others more familiar with the law in this matter, who could provide further sources that might shed light on the issue.
  22. Oh, I don't know that. I was responding to your claim: I didn't think @onxmyxtoes, whose post you were responding to, had been referring specifically to Ramasar and Catazaro.
  23. I thought there was a reference to the sharing of a photo of a company dancer taken (surreptitiously, I thought) while she was changing. Is that not accurate?
  24. Just to clarify, in saying "I don't see why they matter," I of course don't mean to suggest that others shouldn't discuss them. (Forgive me for momentarily discussing the discussion here, simply for the sake of clarifying that I was not discussing the discussion! 😁) I'm definitely interested in considering the effects of her case on the institution — I'm just not sure her particular motives are knowable, or that they have an impact on what particular effects her legal claims will have.