Vs1

Maybe he was angry at public betrayal or how they dealt with it when he was their money maker and said screw you  and I won't work there anymore and I owe you nothing

Maybe he knew anything he says will be used against him

maybe He knew an internal instigation would find no hr report and he was angry for what they did to him knowing that and left to find someone who appreciated him 

maybe he didn't want to work for people who could have resolved a problem simply or privately

maybe fans don't know and it's not their business.

10 hours ago, On Pointe said:

I don't agree with any of that.  If you are abused,  harassed or mistreated in any way by a supervisor or colleague,  you should document the instances and take every step to seek justice.   

But someone said earlier nobody  likes a whistleblower(except those who call them heroes) and who would choose that risk without reward?  

Also, why Relive a horror? Why is it anyone's business?

Also,what does Cosby have to do with Peter? Was peter accused of rape? So why does a lack of police report in peter's case, or most harassment cases(which are civil) mean something?  Likewise, The absence of Eeoc or hr report has no bearing in many offices where it does not apply by law and fact.

as for sour grapes by bad dancers, no one could call gelsey a bad dancer. I don't know about the other dancers.  

Who by definition who leaves a job for any reason other than family or opportunity is not unhappy for whatever reason and by definition disgruntled?  Why does that prove she was a bad dancer or lying?

On 2/16/2018 at 10:53 AM, Olga said:

Possible, but impossible to know. One thing is clear though: making an allegation like this, which could destroy reputations and livelihood and which has harmed the institution, would necessarily have required some serious questioning on the part of ANY investigator. It strains credulity to think otherwise. At the very least, she is naieve, but worse motives could be imputed though we don’t know that. I find her conduct in this from start to finish (assuming we are finished) very odd and out of touch. 

Well, naive people have been used.  Is he accused of quid pro quo threats or favoritism or touching during dance or affairs (not prohibited, even as an employment issue then).  I don't know what "abuse" means vs. "Harassment" (i.e. money differential, quid pro quo, task differentiation, etc.)

On 2/19/2018 at 9:41 PM, On Pointe said:

Is there anything to be learned from this?  Besides the obvious - launching and publicizing an investigation against a person in a position of power,  based upon an anonymous accusation,  is probably not a good idea.  Peter Martins is not really exonerated,  as his past bad behavior has been brought to public attention once again.  Darci Kistler has been humiliated through no fault of her own,  while having to deal with her daughter's serious substance abuse problem.  Dancers who were secure in their career arcs have to start over with "the devil they don't know".  And the NYCB board has the unenviable task of finding a new AD who won't be run out of the city on a rail by the critics and the fans.  As the current tenant in the White House would put it - sad.

 

Except everyone here says sue for age and sexual harassment, go to the union, be fair employers, etc..... So you agree no one can achieve fairness or justice, or should not try to, or don't rock the boat, or the rich and powerful should make an example out of a peasant, or do you think one should seek to stand up and be fair and just?

On 1/30/2018 at 12:10 PM, abatt said:

I agree that NYCB may never publicly reveal the results of the investigation. However, since SAB is an institution which teaches and supervises youngsters at its school, and since NYCB employs minors as apprentices and in the corps, I think it is a grave mistake for them not to release the findings.  Let's also not forget that these institutions are supported by both taxpayer funds and by donations, which also heightens the idea that the information should be made public. I don't think either SAB or NYCB can move on if the results are hidden from public view.  Anything less than full transparency will leave a black stain on both institutions that will never be removed.   If necessary, the names of the witnesses can be redacted from any report, but the conclusions of the investigation should be made public.

Can they by law release an attorney investigation to the board?

Especially, as someone commented, when it was done for the board?

On February 16, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Helene said:

 

cntwnt

Content

On February 13, 2018 at 5:14 AM, Mashinka said:

 

On February 12, 2018 at 10:28 PM, aurora said: