Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Longtimelurker

  • Rank

Registration Profile Information

  • Connection to/interest in ballet** (Please describe. Examples: fan, teacher, dancer, writer, avid balletgoer)
  • City**
    New York
  • State (US only)**, Country (Outside US only)**
    New York

Recent Profile Visitors

43 profile views
  1. These posts don't sound like what I would expect to hear from women working in a dangerous workplace where rape, sexual assault and domestic violence are rampant and tolerated by management -- especially Lovette's video where you can feel the sincerity of her comments in a more visceral way than you can when reading a written post. This sets up an interesting contrast between what is alleged by Waterbury versus the increasingly public support conveyed by the women of NYCB. Although the courts will have final say, for now I am inclined to side with the women who work in the company and have a better understanding of the workplace environment and culture.
  2. These accounts further confirm my negative opinions and suspicions about this individual. One can see from his post on February 11, 2013 that he was involved with an event for ABT.
  3. Yes I understand they may have to amend that part of their defense, but does it actually matter from a legal sense if the messages were exchanged during work hours? From a logical point of view, I don't see how the timing or location of where personal messages were sent would change the company's responsibility for their content.
  4. Thank you for pointing this out. I admire the attitude she is taking toward this situation, especially in light of her comment at the end that there is much to this situation that the public is unaware of. I think many of us who only have publicly available information have been quick to judge the dancers and condemn the company.
  5. I understand that it would look bad for the company if they had to backtrack on their claim that the communications were sent off hours and off premises and it would bolster their reasoning for firing Catazaro and Ramasar in their dispute with the union, but is there a legal ramification related to the Waterbury case if they had to backtrack? Employees at every company send personal texts during work hours on company premises as well as on off hours and off premises and the ability of the employer to know what the content of those messages doesn't change with the timing or location of when those messages were sent or received.
  6. That is a valid point and underscores the importance of validating some of the most incendiary claims made in the legal complaint such as the claim that a principal raped a soloist. Until we have evidence to the contrary, I am still giving the company the benefit of the doubt as I cannot believe that the company would have turned a blind eye to that if there was some merit to such a serious charge. If it turns out that the company dealt responsibly with that type of situation, then all you have evidence of is reprehensible and in some cases illegal behavior in private text messages which the company did not and could not have known about.
  7. Some of the worst behavior alleged in the suit are attributed to Catazaro including circulating explicit photos of a former SAB student and discussing an aggressive sexual proposition to one of their colleagues with Finlay.
  8. So if that is the case then is there also a systemic issue at the employer of the Craig Hall named in the complaint? And then if we consider Longhitano as he is also a donor at ABT? Some of the most vile actions and comments in the complaint are attributed to Hall. I truly feel for the soloist whose pictures he circulated. Based on the additional details disclosed in the revised legal complaint, it is not difficult to deduce who she and she must feel violated and betrayed.
  9. I agree with nearly everything you said. I also don't think that ABT's inability to protect its dancers from these predators demonstrates an institutional failing at ABT, just as I equally think that NYCB's inability to protect someone who isn't in the company doesn't demonstrate an institutional failing. I also hope that ABT takes similar actions to NYCB as regards Longhitano. I also looked through old playbills and noticed that he is not listed on NYCB's Young Patrons board. Perhaps that was another inaccuracy or the company removed him from that position. Longhitano could have also stepped down, but that seems unlikely given his Linkedin profile and other information he posted on public websites. In my opinion, NYCB has arguably been the most proactive company in instituting what your friend calls "ballet's real affirmative action program". The female principals are their most valuable assets and treated as such. There are also less of them in number than the male principals, even after 3 of them were fired. I cannot speak to how this is handled at SAB one way or the other however. I also am extremely skeptical that any such actions could have prevented the Waterbury situation.
  10. Yes and Longhitano was or is an ABT donor as well. Longhitano aside, if the logic is that NYCB has a systemic issue because it can't protect someone who is not affiliated with the company, does ABT also have a systemic issue because it can't protect its own dancers?
  11. Longhitano's association with YAGP is most disturbing. His Linkedin profile says he is the founder and head of the Young Patrons Group at YAGP. In previous posts, I have lauded NYCB's efforts in expanding its audience to the younger generation through initiatives such as the Young Patrons, and this does not change my stance on that -- the arts need to continue to build on these efforts. However, why does an organization such as YAGP even need a junior committee? The amended complaint (as others have said, not for the faint of heart) also alleges that Finlay, Longhitano, Catazaro and Ramasar referenced in conversation or traded explicit pictures of dancers in ABT. For those who feel that NYCB has done an inadequate job of protecting its dancers, do you also feel the same could now be said about ABT? As more details of this situation come to light, I am more convinced that this is a case that could not be prevented by rules set forth by an institution. Luckily in this case, Waterbury has come forward to let the world know about their misdeeds so that the problem can be rooted out. Although I disagree with her about exactly where that problem lies, I applaud her for that.
  12. Then I am confused. I assumed that discussing her possible motives was within the rules of this board as it is something that has been discussed and not deleted. My response was not related to what is allowed by the rules on this board but rather whether discussing it was something that added substantively to the topic. I think that since her lawyer and the media have mischaracterized her relationship with the company that she has chosen to sue, her motives for both suing the company and why that relationship was not accurately reported is something worthy of discussion. Apologies if that or anything else I have said is against the rules of this board.
  13. I agree with most of what you said except for the third point. I think those on this board should consider her possible motives for including NYCB in her suit. This is a ballet board after all and her actions are affecting one of the leading institutions of this art form so open to discussion. Also some media reports and her legal claim have made incorrect characterizations of her relationship with the company. I think that also makes it fair game to consider what the true relationship is and how that could effect her motives and mindset.
  14. Couldn't Catazaro be one of the unidentified principal dancers referenced in Waterbury's claim? In his carefully worded defense, he only specified that his transgressions were not specific to Waterbury and not during company hours. There are a number of text exchanges referenced in the legal claim that could be attributed to Catazaro even if what he says is true.
  15. I also remember when this video was released and thought the last scene could be interpreted in a way that likely was not intended. However, I don't think it would be fair to cast the entire Young Patrons group in a negative light because of the actions of one of its members and this video. I closely follow the dancers on social media and especially since the advent of Instagram Stories, one can see that their social interaction outside of the company is minimal. I am not saying that is a healthy thing, but mention that to point out that the social interaction between dancers and Young Patrons is minimal. I had also previously noticed through social media that one of the Young Patrons was quite close to Finlay and Catazaro and will just say that his posts were quite unlike others who interact with company members or involved in the arts in general. I also noticed that this individual deleted a number of posts which tagged Finlay, Catazaro and Ramasar after the company announced they had identified the Young Patron who was referenced in Waterbury's legal claim. I think the company has done a laudable job of cultivating a younger audience with initiatives such as the Young Patrons, Art Series nights and their programming, and I think that doing so is critical to the future of the company and ballet. I have met a number of the Young Patrons over the years and their interest in ballet is encouraging for the future of the art form. Those interactions coupled with what I said above, lead me to think this is a case of one bad apple rather than the bunch. I hope the company continues its efforts in broadening its audience and that this unfortunate episode does not derail the positive momentum that they have created with the younger generation. Also I hope that the management at NYCB has shared what they know regarding this individual with their counterparts at ABT, since the content of his messages would indicate that he is likely involved with their company as well.