balanchinefreak

Sigh. I have nothing more to add to this except to express my deep sorrow for the reputation of all the ballet companies that don't have the deep pockets and cultural capital of NYCB. There's a ballet company in almost every town in the USA, due in no small measure to Mr. B (and Mr. K). Local worthies devote time and money to supporting ballet because they think it is beautiful and morally uplifting. I pray that none of this dirt sticks to them.

I was specifically referring to D'amboise's recollections of going back to Washington Heights, not Ramasar or Catazaro.

At this point it seems to me we stand here: Finlay, Ramasar and Catazaro (and others still unnamed, which may well be named) engaged in an exchange of emails that was reprehensible, repulsive and totally beyond the boundaries of bro talk. This is (sadly, IMO) not - yet - illegal in NY State. Governor Cuomo, your signature awaits. Hence, Waterbury took civil action. Ramasar and Catazaro are union members and their union will stand up for them. According to the strict rules of the contract, they may have a case. Not illegal, off-hours. I don't know. But I do know this: NYCB depends on good will, private donations, and public monies. For them to say, "We couldn't fire them because what they did, while repulsive, was off-hours and not illegal," would be impossible. Perhaps there is something in the contract that refers to this - again, I don't know. I believe - and I stress this is my belief - that Longhitano was the ringleader of this mess, and I think NYCB might have a case against him. But Ramasar is 36! As for Finlay, I have no words. Catazaro - this is a lesson in drawing boundaries. At a certain point you have to learn how to draw boundaries and risk losing friendships. In D'amboise's book, he tells an anecdote of going back to his gang in Washington Heights, after a year or two in the City Ballet. He was the true street kid, not Villella, who came from a middle-class family. He related that the boys all passed around dirty pictures of women and they all guffawed. That generation's version of cyber-porn. He was disgusted by their low-class behavior, which he once partook of. He left and described it as an "amputation." He never looked back.

So happy that Longhitano has been named. What a class A creep. His Instagram account is now private. NYCB should be very selective about who they allow on their young patron's group.

I don't want to read into your words, so... What was she supposed to do? What were her options? Ask for an apology? You are making it sound (to me) as if she's a shady shakedown racketeer. For those who ask why she didn't go to the police, It's not a criminal case where they will bring out the rape kit.

According to Wikipedia, his father was a computer technician and his mother was an RN. Minority, yes, poor - not really. I'm glad AGMA will contest this. It's the only way for all the facts to come out.

100%. Nor do I see why the company's morale should be affected. Three spots open for talented younger men. Great. We'll find out exactly what happened WRT Catazaro and Ramasar. It's very unclear to me.

From the NY Times: Mr. Scharf’s statement said that “New York City Ballet is confident that there is no basis for this lawsuit, and vehemently denies the allegations that the company has condoned, encouraged, or fostered the kind of activity that Mr. Finlay and the others named have participated in, which were off-hours activities that were not known, approved, or facilitated by NYCB.” Scharf didn't say, "activity that Mr. Finlay and the others named are alleged to have participated in..." Scharf said, "participated in." Scharf's statement was vetted by lawyers. He is the head of BNY Mellon. He's not stupid. "It must be proven that the intent was to prove harm." I'm not a lawyer, but there is a concept that basically says, "The thing speaks for itself." The "revenge porn" law in NY State has already been discussed. According to this, he just might well be guilty: https://www.newyorkcriminallawyer-blog.com/revenge-porn-in-new-york-aggravated-harassment-dissemination-of-an-unlawful-surveillance-image-or-an/

This is true. Chase will probably never face the criminal charges he so richly deserves. Another reason not to feel sorry for him.

PS to my earlier comment. Chase Finlay and all the others certainly do deserve to be humiliated. Absolutely. He humiliated her consciously without compassion, and against all morality, not to mention common sense. A little humiliation will do him good. They also deserve to be hated. I don't deserve to hate them, because hate only hurts the hater, but they do deserve hatred. if anybody doesn't like this, tough. I can live with that. I do not stand with humans who rape other humans. I do not stand with humans who kill other humans. I do not stand with humans who prevent other humans from sitting at lunch counters because of the color of their skin. I stand with victims. I take sides. Finally, I admire Ashley Bouder for speaking out. I might have edited her comment to read a little bit differently, but she has guts and courage for speaking out. Good on you, Ashley.

I dehumanized no one. I said I stand with Alexandra. Chase Finlay violated her. I take sides here, yes. And I would still like to know how Charles Scharf misspoke. Chase Finlay comes from an extremely privileged background. After copping a plea, he will go to college, probably work in his father's fancy architectural firm, and forget that he was ever a ballet dancer. I have limited stocks of compassion. I prefer to save my compassion for the victims.

"Scharf misspoke" How? "Neither he nor NYCB can unilaterally declare that anything in the Waterbury complaint actually happened as claimed. " Sure he can - if he was shown the evidence. She's a young woman who was violated, and don't tell me that it hasn't been proven yet. It has been. Scharf said so. Read his statement. He doesn't dispute that she was violated, he's saying NYCB didn't have anything to do with it. Which may be true. And to me it's pretty obvious why the plaintiff is including both NYCB and Finlay as defendants - to put a wedge between them and force either one or both to turn on one another. Which is exactly what happened. And it didn't take long. We haven't heard from Finlay yet - we can assume (speculation here, well, sorry) that his lawyer is working overtime. But NYCB came out loud and clear very quickly - and threw their golden boy right under the bus. Where he belongs. I stand with Waterbury.

Apologies - I just want to add two things before I reclaim my life. I didn't read Charles Scharf's statement until this morning. The statement is brutally clear: "or fostered the kind of activity that Mr. Finlay and the others named have participated in, which were off-hours activities that were not known, approved, or facilitated by NYCB. " http://gothamist.com/2018/09/05/nyc_ballet_lawsuit.php Scharf is the CEO of BNY Mellon and has the best lawyers on earth. NYCB has officially admitted that Finlay and others did do these things. The legal system will decide what they are guilty of and how they should be punished. But Waterbury told the truth about what happened.

I woke up this morning and was thinking of this. That has to stop, I have to get my life back, so I have a few parting thoughts. The defendant has 20 days to respond - although I suppose they can ask for an extension - can a lawyer here confirm that? There's nothing more of substance to say until that happens. So, with that in mind, a few thoughts before I sign off - Bouder had to say something. She's an outspoken feminist. I disagree with much of what she says but that's irrelevant. She had to speak out. I thought her statement was poorly written but she's a ballerina, not a writer. (Waterbury's lawyer has no such excuse. The complain is frightfully badly written.) She's probably in anguish. Nothing she says is going to figure in the case anyway. Please. It's just one woman's word. And she said that NYCB is NOT a hostile environment, so forget about it. Waterbury. If (and it is a big if) her charges against Finlay are supported by documentation, he is in a boatload of legal trouble. The guys with whom he corresponded are morally tarnished. Ramasar - what on earth was a 36-year old man thinking, behaving this way? (I'm not excusing the others, but honestly, shouldn't he have known better?) The donor is a sleazebag who should never be allowed anywhere near the NYCB. Nothing I have said in the previous two paragraphs should be taken as criticizing Waterbury. She was violated and what was done to her was illegal. It will be up to the law to decide who is legally culpable. Still - it's a lesson to us all and something to drum into kids as soon as they go out into the world - be very careful who you hang around. Everyone here is so so surprised, but really - was it a surprise? I don't think so. That donor was creepiness personified. Peace out. D-day comes on September 25.

Minty Lee said: Yes, absolutely, but I have a hard time thinking that drinking and partying with underage girls went on, and then suddenly someone said, "Stop! This far and no farther." We're not supposed to speculate here, but it's not speculation to assume that under oath, people will be questioned about what happened in DC. And the questions will concern what happened with those underage girls at those parties, or that party.

It did occur to me that union rules govern these situations, but I didn't have time to amend. Stafford might have done all he could. I like him (in fact, he's my choice to run the company, not that my vote matters) and hope that he comes out of this unscathed. If it's true that underage girls were involved - that's a big deal. Not to minimize everything else, but when you cross the territory into underage kids... we are talking about felony.

@Olga, you don't need the authority of an AD to tell an employee don't come to work drunk or we suspend you. If you violate a 2nd time, you are fired.

YES. This is what I've been thinking - see my previous comments. If this was done on company time, NYCB can't say, "I know nothing."

@cinnamonswirl - Would it be relevant if the texts exchanged between Finlay, Ramasar and Catazaro (and the other unnamed guys) during breaks at the Koch theater? I can see that NYCB would be off the hook legally if all of this happened off company time. It looks bad, but they are adults and NYCB is merely their employer. But what if it could be reasonably proven that these guys got away a lot because of who they were and the management took a hands off approach towards them? Then what would the reasonable person conclude? I was struck by the part of the complaint that Jon Stafford knew of Finlay's showing up drunk to class. (Parenthetically I think this will sink his chances to AD. JMO.)

Minty Lee - I'm a casual fan who used to go to the NYCB a lot before Mr. B died - I just want to thank you for putting in words my feelings. You said everything that was in my heart. In fact, I became somewhat turned off to ballet because of the syndrome you so skillfully and honestly portrayed. Ballet is full of bad boys who are tacitly patted on the back - and since we're being so honest, it's because they are male, and straight. Ballet has a reputation for being girlie and gay, so when straight boys act up, it's all kind of a joke, isn't it? That said - This picture, while 100% accurate, may not be what the legal system will be able to process. The legal system is very cut and dried and only punishes what is illegal, not what is immoral. That said - If these men were engaging in this activity on company time, then I do think NYCB is responsible. But I'm not a lawyer. Let the law weigh in on that.