nanushka

Yes, "dancer and former student at NYCB" can mean either "[dancer] and [former student at NYCB]" or "[dancer and former student] at NYCB." I haven't read the full complaint, but it's quite possible that in the fuller context it's perfectly clear that the former, not the latter, is what was meant.

In some cases perhaps, but in others definitely not. For instance, the photo caption on the NYT article reads, "Alexandra Waterbury, 19, filed a suit on Tuesday..."; the article begins, "A 19-year-old woman charged in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that..."

That strikes me as a pretty tepid statement. It’s not even a claim, really, just a definition. I wonder why they didn’t go with something a bit more forceful.

Those four people form the "interim artistic management team." I’m not sure they’re the ones who would have had the power to fully determine how this was handled.

I understood what comments you were responding to. What I didn't understand was how the physical nature of the dancers' work is at all relevant to the particular allegations being made in this case. What has been alleged here would seem to me inappropriate in any workplace, no matter how physically involved the employees are with one another due to the nature of their work. And if coworkers choose to become involved in romantic or sexual relationships with each other — no matter how much of a "tradition" there may be of that — they are still obligated to act professionally in the workplace and to treat their coworkers with dignity and respect, for example by not engaging in harassment or abuse, sexual or otherwise.

So far as I understand them (I haven't yet had time to read the entire complaint), the allegations in this case have nothing to do with the fact that NYCB dancers touch each other all day long. The types of behavior being alleged in this case should, I think, be considered inappropriate and damaging in any work environment — law, academia, the arts...heck, even the adult film industry. I simply do not see how the frequent physical contact of dancers is at all relevant (at least, as a mitigating factor) in a consideration of this case. (Also, what are the rules being "imposed" or even suggested that don't make sense?)

I don't think it's NYCB's responsibility to worry about whether their careers are ruined by this — maybe they are, or maybe they continue elsewhere. I think it's NYCB's responsibility to think about whether they should continue to be employees at NYCB.

It's pretty standard for an employer to engage in some internal investigation following the raising of sexual harassment claims and similar alleged abuses, I believe. It may not be a criminal investigation (they're employers, after all, not the police), but it's still an investigation. Behavior that constitutes sexual harassment may not even itself be a crime (though sometimes it is); and yet, the employer is still expected (i.e. legally required) to respond to the allegations — for instance, with an investigation — and to take appropriate action. Major companies such as NYCB have many people on staff who have expertise in areas other than Balanchine technique.

The first NYT article stated that Finlay had not even responded to NYCB's attempts to address the matter with him; he simply resigned.

Not even a year, perhaps. It's a bit unclear exactly how long the suspensions are to last, but from the wording in articles and statements that have come out so far, it would seem Ramasar and Catazaro might return as early as the Winter 2019 season (which begins in January).

Most issues relating to interpersonal dynamics involving gender and/or sexuality are "societal issues," and yet employers become responsible for changing things when those interpersonal dynamics have an impact on employees' ability to do their jobs in a safe environment.

Presumably he could have been both injured and kept out of performances while the in-house response to the allegations was pending. Do we have any publicly available info on this?

Interesting, because today's NYT online article text and photo caption also both indicate that she is 19.

I wonder if NYCB had any heads-up that this lawsuit was likely. Do the two suspensions really remain viable responses for the company now? Can Ramasar and Catazaro really return to the stage as soon as winter season? How will audiences receive them? (Obviously the workplace dynamics are also a concern.)

Maybe. Or maybe that was just a situation in which three employees behaved badly and the company took action to remedy the problem, just as one would expect in any well-functioning workplace. We don't know the details, so there's no way to be sure. As for "Many say the company is dancing better than ever" — I'm not sure I've heard quite that. I've heard (and seen during the last winter and spring seasons) that the company is dancing quite impressively, and especially given the preceding turmoil re: Martins.

Some impact, in the eyes of some (those relatively few who are aware, and are even thinking about dancers' offstage interpersonal dynamics as they watch performances)? Sure. An "embarrassing" degree of "dysfunction" and "upheaval" (and enough to significantly affect business)? Not in my opinion.

Hmm I guess in my mind those various things just don’t connect in that way. The breakups (and leaving to pursue a different type of career? really?) don’t seem like NYCB things. They seem like Fairchild/Peck and Fairchild/Veyette things. They don’t reflect on the company at all really, for me personally. Unamicable breakups are so very common. I don’t see institutional dysfunction there. I doubt much of the general (ie non-BA type) public is connecting those dots either. Just my sense, though.

Yes, so far, based on available info about this occurrence, I don’t see evidence of anything “dysfunctional” about the organization. It seems that there’s a protocol in place for situations such as this, and it was carried out fairly smoothly. Obviously, there’s a lot we don’t know, and some of that may suggest otherwise, but — well, we don’t know that.

Presumably the code of conduct does, as it is likely part of the employment contract. Or if the messages simply in and of themselves constituted a breach of the code of conduct — which the article suggests they did.

We don’t know that the recipient or recipients weren’t affiliated with NYCB; we only know the complainant wasn’t. We also don’t know the messages were of a sexual nature.

Technically, the only person who doesn't have a job as a result of this is the one who chose to resign without even responding to his employers' attempts to reach him and discuss the matter. (Not a good look, IMO.)

Yeah, promotions are one thing, casting quite another. NYCB seems quite willing to take those chances. (In part the nature of their rep helps.)

I'd be interested to know of past suspensions (specifically for inappropriate behavior) of dancers in major ballet companies, as I have a sense that such suspensions have different ramifications and are treated/viewed differently in different professional fields. Does anyone have a sense from past examples of what this might mean for a dancer's career (and particularly for that of a dancer with principal status)?

I think that, too, is something that's left unclear in the article.

I've watched again and again the Gelsey Kirkland Midsummer PDD (with d'Amboise) on YouTube. Magical.