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.

37 minutes ago, Helene said:

I don't see any disgust expressed by any of the three men that would indicate that they feel they need to set boundaries. 

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.

11 hours ago, Helene said:

By asking for financial damages, she has revealed the goal of her lawsuit.  

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. 

47 minutes ago, fondoffouettes said:

 

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.

4 hours ago, aurora said:

without the legal system, it is unlikely that there would be any consequences for the men, and certainly there would be no restitution or remedy for Ms Waterbury.

It is adversarial because they (Finlay most particularly) violated her.

 

100%.

Nor do I see why the company's morale should be affected. Three spots open for talented younger men.

4 hours ago, FPF said:

The NYT article has been updated to say that the AGMA is planning to challenge both firings.

Great. We'll find out exactly what happened WRT Catazaro and Ramasar. It's very unclear to me.

30 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

This is speculation. It has not been proven that he took any images without permission these are her allegations. We only know that "material was sent". Even then, it must be proven that the intent was to cause harm. It is grossly unfair of you to suggest that anybody deserves anything at this point.

 

 

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/

2 hours ago, Helene said:

He can only cop a plea if he is brought up on criminal charges.  If this remains on the civil track, even settling before trial does not prove anything, except that whoever settled believes that settling is better than going forward, and there are many reasons why someone would do that, aside from guilt.  If a case is settled before trial, an organization will often publicize a disclaimer that it's not an admission of guilt.

The only thing we know is that communications were submitted to NYCB, they did an internal investigation, and, based on the results, they decided to suspend two dancers and to attempt to contact a third about discipline.

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.

2 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

I stand with humans. Both Alexandra Waterbury and Chase Finlay are humans with strengths and weaknesses, good and bad sides, gifts and faults, bad deeds and good deeds.

De-humanizing either one of them does not promote justice, kindness, or a better world.

Finlay (and Ramasar and Catazaro and the donor, etc.) may deserve punishment, but nobody deserves hatred and humiliation.

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.

On 9/10/2018 at 9:36 AM, On Pointe said:

Scharf misspoke.  Neither he nor NYCB can unilaterally declare that anything in the Waterbury complaint actually happened as claimed.  "Craig Hall" is referenced in the complaint as a ballet student.  One of the company dancers recently married "Craig Hall",  and of course "Craig Hall" is a beloved ex-soloist and current member of the interim leadership team.  Some of those presumed guilty are not even named in the complaint.  It will take a lengthy adjudication  to determine exactly who did what to whom.

2

"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:

Quote

I know underage girls drinking and partying is not right either, but child porn is far worse, and that is not what anyone has alleged

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.

2 hours ago, Olga said:

I don’t disagree on this narrow point.

Actually, even that narrow point may be wrong given disability regulations and the fact he is a union member. 

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.

59 minutes ago, Olga said:

Even if Stafford was a great leader, he lacked the authority of an AD because of his interim status. I think his chances of becoming something more than interim vanished when the complaint was filed. I take Bouder’s post more as a criticism of the Board for letting this go on for so long, an expression of her hope for the future, an affirmation of the “company” itself, and an effort to disassociate herself from this awful stuff, particularly in view of her image as a feminist and outspoken person. It’s pure speculation to guess at reasons why the Board is taking so long. This should light a fire under them. I am not one to fill a position (or for that matter to vote) purely on the basis of gender or race. But in this instance I believe they must appoint a woman, and I will have a hard time renewing my membership if they don’t.

@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. 

4 hours ago, lmspear said:

There is one issue that has not been addressed which could leave potentially vulnerable in the case or at the very least open up an IT headache that they probably never thought the need to deal with.

Even if personal devices were used by the men in Waterbury's case, there is the possibility that company email addresses, WI-FI, and servers were used.  The company then becomes, probably unknowingly, the provider of the distribution method of harmful messages and photos.  I believe it has been established in cases involving businesses and government that there is no expectation of privacy if your material is routed through your employer's computer servers.  The company code of conduct should contain a section on cyber-behavior (but even if the document is up to date, who reads the fine print?).  I think we can agree that sending naked pictures of your girlfriend through the company internet servers is worse behavior than taking home a pad of little yellow sticky notes. The company resources have been misused in a way that harms employees and their personal associates and damages the company image as a desirable place to work for future employees, or an institution worthy of financial support from ticket sales and donations.

The men named in the case have harmed both the company and the women in a manner that deserves more than a slap on the wrist.  Whether the situation is resolved through civil and/or criminal litigation is up to the lawyers and the district attorney's office.

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."

14 hours ago, cinnamonswirl said:

Yes, I was attempting to explain to  (and quoted) a previous poster who was asking about hostile work environment and why Waterbury presumably didn't make that claim.

Even negligence requires a legal duty owed by the tortfeasor to the injured party. The elements of negligence are: duty, breach, causation and damages. In your hypothetical, it is established law (both from case law and by statute, in most jurisdictions) that homeowners owe a duty to the public to not allow tree limbs to fall on passers by. Here, I don't see what duty NYCB owed Waterbury based on the facts presented; I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong and there was a duty (and it would be helpful to me if you can provide a cite).

Also, Waterbury is also alleging other torts that are not negligence torts (assault, IIED) and require specific intent by the tortfeasor.

@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.)

15 hours ago, MintyLee said:

 

Alex found out about these reprehensible activities after finals were over last semester at Columbia. Classes resumed this past Tuesday.

Being on the roster at Wilhelmina does not necessitate actively working. Many models have representation with agencies, but are not always actively going to castings. Quite a few who fit this description actually dance at City Ballet.

The Pix11 piece features video of Alex taken before these events unfolded, specifically during rehearsal for a Columbia Ballet Collaborative performance in the Streng Studio at Barnard in a past semester. Other videos of Alex's audition pieces are also available for media use and date to November 21, 2015.

Moreover, just because she is back on campus and back in classes does not mean she is not suffering the effects of these men's actions. Physically being in class does not mean you are able to concentrate on what is happening. I can attest to this personally because I have no idea what happened in my classes after I read about what happened to her. Being able to go to class also doesn't mean that you don't leave those classes crying.

The pattern of exploitation of female dancers at City Ballet is not difficult to see, and the question of how aware the company was of this ongoing issue can be answered quite readily be perusing HR complaints, disciplinary records, occasional pieces of reporting in the New York Times, and perhaps even asking why certain ballet masters have been on extended leave from the company. I'm sure former dancers who are no longer concerned with the repercussions on their career also have a few cents to add in this regard.

Humor me for a minute with a purely hypothetical thought exercise. Imagine a talented male dancer in Advanced Men at SAB who breaks curfew and comes back to the dorms with liquor on his breath. Because of his promise, he is disciplined lightly, or perhaps not at all. Imagine this happens several times during his school career and escalates from alcohol use to marijuana and then cocaine without adequate intervention from the school. Perhaps the school even turns a blind eye a few times, and decides on a warning followed by probation or suspension instead of expulsion.

Imagine this same talented male dancer becomes an apprentice in the company and sees his older colleagues--role models he has admired for years, who have gotten the same treatment from the school--abusing drugs, partying all night with underage girls, and then showing up to class the next morning wearing their dusk-to-dawn escapades as a BADGE OF HONOR. "A real dancer works hard and parties even harder," he learns. "This is how I become a principal," he thinks. "I have to show I can keep up with these guys. Out do them even." It is a competitive environment, after all.

Imagine his company sponsors open bar parties where alcohol flows freely and the young girls from SAB sneak in through the stage door without any trouble because the security guards have seen them come in and out during Nutcracker, or Romeo and Juliet, or another piece involving students. No one is checking for tickets anyway. Imagine that the members of the development department present are aware that these girls are underage but do not see it as their duty to say anything, especially because corps members who are equally underage are already present and already drinking. "The rules don't matter here," he learns. "It doesn't matter if I break them because I dance at New York City Ballet." On top of that, imagine the steering committee members and host committee putting on this event share in the culture of drunken excess and add to it a flare of debauchery that excites him.

Imagine this dancer also learn that his boss was charged with domestic violence against his wife but suffered no consequences because she recanted her story. Imagine this dancer even knows of instances where his older colleagues have been caught with drugs, but the company manages to arrange a less-career-devastating outcome. Imagine he also knows of verbal and emotional abuse by the men in his dressing room against their girlfriends, which no one seems to bat an eye at. Imagine his peers showing up to rehearsals drunk without repercussions, or with repercussions that are ineffective. Imagine his boss showing up to rehearsals with vodka cleverly disguised in a Starbucks cup. "I'm untouchable," he thinks. "I'm invincible."

Continue this line of thought over the course of two decades. When this male dancer feels untouchable and invincible enough to violate his girlfriend for the amusement of his friends and colleagues, can we honestly say that his company's normalization and promotion of a "frat-house" culture, where the male dancers are seemingly impervious to discipline or consequences, played no role in his (d)evolution? When a new apprentice arrives from the school and sees this dancer as his role model, is this same culture not at fault when the apprentice develops similar beliefs and habits?

The financially responsible party is New York City Ballet, Inc. Its assets as of last year's annual report were a little over 240 million, with over 180 million in endowment. It may or may not be covered by general liability insurance for damages paid out in a lawsuit, but, regardless, the dancers' salaries are determined by the dancer agreement negotiated between AGMA and the company. They would not lose any earnings in the case City Ballet loses this lawsuit. The company may lose subscribers and donors and prestige over this, and in the long-run, that may affect how budgets look in the future, but the dancers have certain guarantees for hours and wages provided in their dancer agreement each year. Perhaps it might mean less expensive costumes for the fall gala. Perhaps it might mean a fall gala where Alastair does not have to complain about how "the costumes encumber the movement" all together. Oh, perhaps.

The evidentiary rules established in the Fourth Amendment that govern illegal search and seizure only apply to the state, namely, the police. If a non-police person discovers evidence of a crime against them, it does not matter how that evidence is discovered, it can be used.

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.