Kathleen O'Connell

7 minutes ago, minervaave said:

According to the complaint, the donor actually hosted parties and gave speeches at them, including one where the microphone had to be cut because he was so drunk.  That doesn’t sound like a couple of friends getting together and having a party - microphones and speeches and someone else cutting the mike strongly imply that this was a formal event.  And I can guarantee you that no major non-profit in NYC lets a low level donor host one of their events.  That is a privilege exclusively limited to VIPs.  Also, anyone who thinks this sort of behavior is limited to the young and foolish should probably read a little bit more about the behavior of NY’s monied elite.  It doesn’t surprise me at all.

No, it doesn't sound like a few friends getting together, but it needn't have been a charity event for there to be speeches and a microphone. It could have been a wedding, a big birthday bash, a retirement party, a bar mitzvah, the celebration of a special achievement - who knows? And the point is, we don't know. 

I haven't decided if the complaint is one of the sloppiest I've read or one of the most clever. As a coherent narrative of the facts and a robust presentation of the theory of the case, it leaves something to be desired. However, that very sloppiness allows us to draw damning inferences based on very few concrete details. For instance, the complaint doesn't say the donor was a "major donor" or an "important donor," nor does it state explicitly that the behavior took place at NYCB-sponsored events. It doesn't explain how or why NYCB would have knowledge of the donor's behavior. It merely states that the donor hosted parties, encouraged excessive alcohol consumption, and had his mike cut; it then states that the company took his money and allowed him to attend its events "regardless of his behavior." It leaves us to infer that that behavior took place at NYCB events, but doesn't say that it did.

Look, I'm not saying that the donor wasn't a major check-writer, or that he didn't behave badly at NYCB events. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that were the case. (Frankly, nothing in the complaint would surprise me, although it would certainly sadden and disgust me.) But the complaint doesn't come right out and say that. It could be because it is badly written, or it could be by design.

Just now, AB'sMom said:

And there are plenty of foolish young and monied men about. 

Lordy, yes, especially in NYC. 

If you are a young professional with, say, C-suite or fast-track partnership aspirations, you find yourself a prestigious charity fast, start writing checks, and get on a junior committee asap.

6 minutes ago, Rick said:

Yes, but most probably high level nonetheless. According to paragraph 27 of the complaint, the donor routinely gave speeches while drunk.

Oh, I've done that. 😉

If the speech referred to in the complaint (it appears to have been just one) was made during an NYCB function, then yes, it might have been someone who ponied up more than a few thousand. However, the complaint only states that the donor "hosted parties" where excessive alcohol consumption was encouraged and that his mike was cut during a speech. It doesn't state that the speech was made at an NYCB sponsored event. 

13 minutes ago, minervaave said:

Only the highest level of donors typically get access at an “intimate” level to the dancers, especially to the principals.

The donor could easily have been someone with a previous connection to Finlay — a family friend, say, or the colleague of a friend or family member.  Dancers can have friends that they make on their own, and those friends can be encouraged to become donors. 

1 minute ago, Longtimelurker said:

I think the way I quoted Helene's response created some confusion as to exactly which claims I was referring to.  I was referring to the claims that a male principal raped a female soloist in Vail and assaulted a female corps member. 

For the record, I was referring to all the claims, including this one — which the complaint itself refers to as a claim. (See number 29 on page 8 of the complaint.)

2 minutes ago, Helene said:

Claim <> Rumor.  There is a legal process that addresses claims, and the complaint is the first step.

Exactly. 

20 minutes ago, Longtimelurker said:

Yes but even in the legal complaint those instances of alleged domestic violence are described as "claims" with nothing substantiated.

If this suit goes to trial, I assume both sides will use discovery to either substantiate or defuse the claims. I think we can safely infer that Ms. Waterbury has the receipts when it comes to Finlay's emails and texts. For the rest, her evidence at the moment may be little more than hearsay. 

That doesn't mean that there isn't truth to the claims, but rather that she and her lawyer might not be able to provide any documentary evidence or witness testimony regarding them until they've deposed the relevant parties or subpoenaed the relevant documents, which, I believe can only be done if the parties proceed to trial.

For what it's worth, Ms. Waterbury is being represented by Jordan K. Merson, a personal injury lawyer. Judging from his firm's website, his is a fairly standard personal injury practice and handles negligence, medical malpractice, and sexual assault. 

Every page in the FAQ section of the website contains some version of the following language:

How much do you charge? 

Zero.  Nothing for a free consult.  We will tell you your options and provide you with information at no charge.  In the event that you do have a case, the firm operates on a contingency fee arrangement, which means that we only get a fee if you win.  There are no bills to you, hourly charges or any amounts you have to pay until you are successful.

By the way, the fact that Ms. Waterbury is using a personal injury lawyer on a contingency fee basis shouldn't in and of itself bias anyone's judgment of her or her claims. 

15 minutes ago, Tapfan said:

I've always been bothered by the fact that some straight male classical dancers, feel the need to declare how in to women they are and to brag about how much access they have to scantily clad, nubile women.  

It sounds so defensive and definitely isn't the most mature stance you can project.  

Yes, and they make these protestations surrounded by gay colleagues. I can only imagine how galling it must be for a gay man to hear one of his peers fret about the fact that people might think he's not straight and go out of his way to loudly assert his hetero bona fides. 

How refreshing it would be to hear a straight male dancer say something like "Yeah, some people think I'm gay, but I don't have a problem with that. Why would I?"

6 hours ago, wonderwall said:

I watched this after reading this thread and thought it was very interesting--especially 2:52 through the end.

 

I had this cued up for a post this AM as well. I was really annoyed by the clip when it first aired way back in 2013, and was surprised that the filmmakers included it, frankly. It certainly isn't flattering. In fairness, maybe flattery wasn't the intention. 

2 minutes ago, vipa said:

Thank you Kathleen. So no individuals would be personally liable but if a suit is lost the entity would have to pay whatever settlement/penalty is decided. It would come out of company funds, or perhaps an insurance policy. Is that correct?

That would be my assumption. But I am not a lawyer.

2 minutes ago, vipa said:

I'll naively ask what is meant by "the company" in a case like this. Is it the board, management, leadership team - who is the company?

New York City Ballet Inc. — i.e., the legal entity that files 990s with the IRS, files CHAR500s with the NYS Charities Bureau, pays its employees and issues their W2s or 1099s, etc etc etc.

1 hour ago, abatt said:

 I think this incident  helps tip the scale for hiring a woman as the new leader of NYCB.

If they can find one who'd actually want to come and clean up this mess.

(OK, alleged mess.)

Sigh. Yet more details here: https://www.lohud.com/story/news/local/westchester/2018/09/05/ballerina-claims-fraternity-like-atmosphere-nyc-ballet/1202147002/. (This is from The Journal News' online site lohud, a local paper for the Lower Hudson region.)

19 minutes ago, volcanohunter said:

It is dificult to imagine how Ramasar and Catazaro could return from their suspensions once all the sordid details have been revealed in court. 

If the allegations are true, I hope that what the dancers think counts as much to the company as what the audience might think. 

The first sentence of the Gothamist article indicates that the plaintiff alleges that the photos and videos were shared with "fellow dancers, NYC Ballet employees and donors."

There's also an article about the lawsuit in Gothamist.

ETA: also, The Daily News.

The details are not pretty.

Be careful with this website. 

1) Although Iconic Arts claims to be a 501c3 charity for US tax purposes, and actively solicits donations, I haven't been able to find it listed in any of the usual 501c3 databases. The website doesn't provide any details regarding its founders, staff, its board, where it is located, etc. They may well be legit, but their website is pretty light on the details that would allow anyone to check them out. 

2) Note the following disclaimer regarding copyright: "It is possible that this site may contain some copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner." Iconic Arts claims to be making copyrighted material available under the Fair Use doctrine.  Selling copyrighted material if you are not the copyright holder or have not been given the copyright holder's permission to do so - usually will not be construed as "fair use."

3) Iconic Arts claims that its prices are "donations" and that it is therefore not "selling" products in the traditional sense. Claiming that the price paid is a "donation" rather than a purchase does not make distributing copyrighted material for money OK under US law. 

The storied Village Voice is no more. 

It's been on life support for an age, but its current owner, Peter Barbey, finally pulled the plug.

The Voice was the home of dance historian and critic Deborah Jowitt, who remains one of the greats. (Jowitt chose to resign from the Voice in 2011 rather than change her style and write the kind of sharply negative reviews her editor preferred. She began writing for the Voice in 1967.)

The list of great writers, reporters, critics, and cartoonists who were published in its pages is, as they say, long and distinguished.

From NYPL's digital collection, here's a link to a Martha Swope photo of the Frame brothers and Maria Calegari in Agon. It was always a treat to see Agon's Second Pas de Trois when they were cast in it. 

So sad to hear this! RIP.

I chanced to sit next to him at a performance once after he'd retired, and he couldn't have been more gracious. He waived off my compliments about his own career and enthused about the dancers we'd just seen onstage instead. 

1 minute ago, abatt said:

His dances evoked a range of emotions.  Promethean Fire still always causes me to shed a tear each time I see it, because I closely associate it with my own experiences on Sept 11.  Esplanade and other dancers always bring great joy. 

Yes, indeed! I should have mentioned bringing me to tears as well, which, believe it or not, Company B almost always did! In wartime, "There will never, ever be another you" means exactly that, for real and for keeps. 

RIP, Paul Taylor.  Thank you for the countless hours of joy your dances and your dancers put into my life. Thank you, too, for the times your dances provoked me, annoyed me, puzzled me, and made me think.

1 minute ago, fondoffouettes said:

But as to who would be advocating for these dancers, I think it would be AGMA, right? Are NYCB dancers members of AGMA?

Yes, NYCB's dancers are members of AGMA. 

41 minutes ago, Barbara said:

I realize the dancers don't owe the public anything but I think what On Pointe says is true. I would appreciate seeing some kind of press release or social media statement from the dancers with even a vague explanation. I assume someone is advising them about this kind of action. 

It may be that both the company and the dancers have decided not to reveal more details regarding the nature of the texts and emails in order to protect the privacy of the complainant or the person or persons on whose behalf the complainant is acting. 

Coming clean might have its benefits for both the dancers and the company (and might actually be a useful "teaching moment" for aspiring young dancers who look up to these men as role models). But I can also imagine an outcome in which the person or persons making the complaint might be doxxed and harassed by an outraged fan should too much information become publicly available.

9 hours ago, cobweb said:

But what are “inappropriate communications”? It would seem apparent a desire for sexual contact with the recipient was featured, either via words or photos. Ok. Is that grounds for not having a job?

Although it's natural to assume that the texts and emails in question were sexual in nature given the current environment and in light of prominent past offenders like Weiner, it certainly need not be the case. And, It's entirely possible that the person (or persons) with a grievance regarding those messages was not their recipient or their intended recipient. 

There are plenty of ways texts and emails can constitute conduct unbecoming.

Moderators: feel free to delete this post if I've crossed the speculation line — my intention is merely to point out that we needn't assume the communication was sexual in nature.