nanushka

NYCB's decision to fire them was not contingent on guilt as proven in a court of law, nor need it have been. It was also not apparently based solely on the lawsuit's (clear or unclear) descriptions of the allegations.

There's also the background of his own experience of having been accused of sexual misconduct:

I would guess Hee Seo might do it? (Has she in the past?) ETA: Actually no, it's not listed in her rep. I would think it'd be a good fit (thought I'm not a particular fan of either her or the ballet).

They've done Giselle for two years running now, and that's one that's typically been given every third year (or so) off, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case.

On June 25, in the 2018-19 season thread, I did a comparison between the schedule at that point and as originally announced, and here's what I found:

Yes it is. It's in the "Barber, Broadway and Balanchine" program. (It wasn't originally but has been listed for some time now and was previously discussed in the 2018-19 season thread.)

I didn't read the Reichlen/Danchig-Waring statement as falling clearly on either side of the debate. It takes clear stands on certain broad moral/ethical principles, but in terms of the Waterbury v. Finlay/Ramasar/Catazaro/etc. case in particular I think it could be read either way.

Count mine among the hearty endorsements of the Goldner books. They were instrumental in my becoming a total Balanchine devotee.

Well, you began your post with this: ...and you ended it with this: And you didn't mention anyone other than her being at fault for the harms you described in your post. It seemed to me that you were "primarily" (if not, in fact, only) blaming her for those harms.

Furthermore, why is it primarily Waterbury rather than the alleged perpetrators — Finlay, et al — who, according to @On Pointe, gets the blame for "hurting a lot of women" by bringing this suit? If Waterbury does indeed have standing to sue (and I understand that is still in dispute by some here), then it should follow that blame for potential negative effects of that suit might fall on them.

I'm curious if you have particular privacy laws in mind here. If so, could you provide some specifics?

I'm not sure why it matters in the least what her particular reasons were — what matters first and foremost, so long as she wasn't breaking any laws, is what she found there — but as has already been explained on this thread it's very conceivable that she preferred to read and respond to emails on a laptop rather than on her phone, perhaps knowing that there would be a good number she'd need to deal with in a thorough manner (e.g. professional emails pertaining to her modeling work, etc.). That's just one possible explanation.

Ah ok, sorry, I thought they were usually 17. My mistake most likely!

One of her interview responses would seem to clarify that "underage" means under 18 (given that they were apprentices): ETA: @tutu has corrected me on this, it seems "underage" may indeed have meant under 21.

I note that you say three different things here about your interpretation of their words: (1) that it's "clearly" the right one; (2) that it's "just as likely" the right one; and (3) that it's "more likely" the right one. I find (2) barely plausible, but I can understand thinking that. (1) and (3) seem to me to be completely unsupported at this point. Also, just because one is joking about rape doesn't mean one is "plotting rape." That's an exaggeration of how others are reading the quotation, I think.

Did these women really say in their posts "that nothing was wrong"? That's not how I read their words. It's very possible to express love for and loyalty to and gratitude toward an organization (or a family, or a school, or a community, or any other complex social group) while still recognizing that there are problems there — even very serious problems that one would like to see remedied. I would imagine many of us could relate to the experience of having such complex feelings about groups to which we belong.

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

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."

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).

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.

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.

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.

Yes, everyone — including pornographic film actors!

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.

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.