fordhambae

5 hours ago, ABT Fan said:

"But as more details of the texting allegations emerged in a lawsuit, a number of women in the company made it clear to management that they would not feel comfortable dancing with those men again, and some expressed dismay that their labor union was contesting their removal."

Would not feel comfortable because of allegations vs. finding out the facts?

Expressed dismay that the union was contesting their removal?  I'm sure they wouldn't be in dismay if the union was contesting on their behalves... union is for all, not for few.

lots of hypocrisy going on, as usual.

1 minute ago, Drew said:

I am very sorry you went through that.

I suppose the answer to your question depends on the circumstances of his abuse and who else at Goldman Sachs, if anyone, was involved.

I assume even if you did have a case--judge didn't dismiss it etc.-- because of plausible indications of a massive problem at Goldman Sachs, blah, blah there would still be limits on whose phones could be vetted etc. Law is slow and complicated.

My point is, it was our problem. We are still friends in fact and he is in a much better place now (recovered alch etc). 

I don’t see it as having warranted a larger scale investigation or lawsuit against GS even if many men there are similar (they are).

Thats why I feel strongly about this, I believe this should be between the two parties who dated.

Even if the company goes through every dancers phones and finds things they don’t find appropriate, even if it turns out female dancers were also acting poorly to male dancers too, if they decide to fire 5 more dancers, 10 more or even 50 more, Waterbury was still never an employee of the company.

I once dated a Goldman Sachs employee who was abusive. Can I launch an internal investigation and have the phones of all GS employees worldwide vetted? 

6 minutes ago, Helene said:

Are women "actors" when they're raped, assaulted, are beaten by their partners, and have their images shared? 

Not sure what you’re referring to when you talk about rape and assault/beating.

 Does Waterbury claim that happened to her?  It’s bizarre that if she is making these claims that the persons haven’t been mentioned in the lawsuit since text conversations that don’t involve her were. Seems like those stronger allegations would be at the forefront to prove her case

23 minutes ago, Helene said:

I'm not sure why she's expected to be a sacrificial lamb to protect anyone else.  

Seems like she’s the only one with a problem

3 minutes ago, Drew said:

Who knows if she tried to get him help or not? Or if she fully grasped how serious the problems were when they were together (assuming they were serious)?

Waterbury states in the article that they were talking about moving in together and finances, so I assume it was a serious relationship.

3 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

Yes, but usage at a single party is very different than someone who has "drinking and drug problems" to quote Waterbury's interview. 

Addiction is a medical condition, and disclosing someone else's medical condition can run afoul of privacy laws. It's similar to saying NYCB "knew he had ADD" or "knew he had cancer." 

If they were a couple for that length of time, she would have also known about his 'drinking and drug problems' too.

I wonder why she didn't get him help or why she stayed with him if he was such a bad person allegedly.

11 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

 

I agree that Finlay allowing Ms. Waterbury  access to his computer was a dumb move,  if it happened the way she describes.  So far,  we only have her version of events.

 

I think we can all agree giving passwords to anyone is a dumb idea yes. It will be interesting to hear his version of events. I wonder whether he has any contrasting evidence to her story.

17 minutes ago, Helene said:

That's a very different context.  

Right, what’s the crime in this context then? Firearms? Murder?

30 minutes ago, MarzipanShepherdess said:

And "just joking" about raping a junior colleague would be OK, in your opinion? At any company I've worked for, that kind of "joke" ALONE would be cause for immediate termination. Who would want to work with someone who joked about raping their colleagues?

It is truly amazing to me the behavior people seem to be willing to excuse from artists they favor.

I believe that leave her no choice is about convincing not about raping.

 “I want to get this job and leave them no choice”. Does that sound like that person intends to rape the interviewer? ...or could it mean they’re going to try their hardest to convince them so they say yes. 

2 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

Catazaro's language was more than crude, though. According to the amended complaint, he and Finlay engaged in an extended back and forth where they fantasized about raping a corps member (Finlay specifically used the language "give her no choice"). 

How do you know they were fantasizing? How do you know they were not just joking? It’s not illegal to joke or fantasize for that matter...  Do you know how easy it is to take a text conversation out of context? 

Also if you read the complaint you will see that Catazaro said that he wasn’t interested and that he would feel too bad having a 3way.

7 minutes ago, Drew said:

 Even if it's not a legal responsibility (which courts will decide): if an organization does an in-house investigation and finds that THREE of their top people are involved in behavior that is judged to be problematic, then I own it's very hard for me to take it as simply given nothing more is going on... that, say in this case, it's no more than one bad apple plus two slightly oxygenated ones... 

The company suspended them before this lawsuit was filed as well as releasing a statement saying that Merson had come for them asking for a settlement, which they had declined.

The aftermath of the lawsuit, as well as now implicating the school in the lawsuit as an additional defendant, has undoubtedly caused massive representational damages to the company (donors complaining, ticket sales etc) and as for the school, I can only imagine the concerns of student parents as well as future parents sending their children to the school.

 I don't doubt that all of this was an attempt at trying to get the company to buckle for a big cash settlement.

2 minutes ago, nanushka said:

It does sound farfetched. Is that what Waterbury is doing? Trying to "bring down" NYCB?

She is trying to get money. Look at Merson's case records https://mersonlaw.com/

He doesn't care about changing culture, he cares about making HUGE money... and guess who has the money here.... not Finlay!

21 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

The sections of the complaint dealing with Ramasar are written in such a sloppy,  ungrammatical fashion that it's difficult to figure out who did what to whom,  allegedly.  At one point,  the complaint seems to allege that Catazaro and Ramasar were actually filming Ms. Waterbury  performing sexual acts,  which they are not accused of doing. 

The amended complaint was actually corrected again after it was filed, you can see this in the database. The first complaint was also corrected after it was filed.

Catazaro was removed from this part you are referencing above. I agree, very sloppily written and a mockery of the legal system quite frankly.

1 minute ago, Helene said:

If it goes to court, we'll certainly see.  Civil and/or criminal.

correct

2 minutes ago, Helene said:

She checked her email and learned that Finlay had taken images of her without her knowledge

Allegedly

10 minutes ago, Pique Arabesque said:

While people with significant age gaps can have relationships based on love and respect, many 25+ year old men who pursue 18 year old women would likely be having relationships with underage girls if the law allowed.

What is your source for this statement? Is it also the case that 25+ year old women who pursue 18 year old men would likely be having relationships with underage boys if the law allowed?

1 minute ago, nanushka said:

I fail to see how any of that is relevant to the question of whether (as you asserted) “the lawsuit was written deliberately to invoke [evoke] this exact response” — ie the confusion of “student” and “former student.”

My apologies, I thought you were responding to a different message I wrote.

 The lawsuit states that the school had a duty to safeguard Miss. Waterbury and other women from Chase Finlay etc, asserting that these men were, as Mr. Merson stated "using as a hunting ground". Do we have proof of when they met and how they met and was she a former student at the time? 

1 minute ago, nanushka said:

And you may be right. My point was that you’ve as yet offered no real evidence to accompany your argument, making it a mere assertion.

1) Files lawsuit against the company days after the company takes action to suspended individuals and announce another retires.

2) Adds defendants to lawsuit only after the company takes additional action to terminate the suspended.

3) Adds donor's name to lawsuit, which they've known all along and had the individuals texts of from the beginning.

4) Adds school to lawsuit as a separate entity after previously claiming the school and company are the same.

6 minutes ago, ABT Fan said:

I misinterpreted that in the complaint.

Right but they aren't students are they. They're former students.

7 minutes ago, nanushka said:

that doesn't mean his failure to be so was ill-intentioned.

 I would argue that every action he is taking is a very well planned strategy.

2 minutes ago, Helene said:

I fail to see how this is in any way misleading

 

One of your readers wrote "Students, too? I'm sick to my stomach."

It can easily become misconstrued, especially in the media to make the public believe that underage persons were victims in this lawsuit.

3 minutes ago, rkoretzky said:

And that matters why? 30, 40, 50... everyone has an right to privacy and to the expectation that if they refuse to participate in something that refusal will be honored. 

These aren’t porn stars. They are  women who happen to work as ballet dancers. 

I'm not talking about privacy, I'm talking about context.

In the same way that anyone reading this could be refereed to as 'former infant'. The use of infant is misleading if they are 40 years old and this happened yesterday.  The use of 'former SAB students' was only used to tie the connection between the company and the school.

20 hours ago, ABT Fan said:

Students, too?

I'm sick to my stomach.

FORMER students. The lawsuit was written deliberately to invoke this exact response. These former students could easily be pushing 30 years old at the time of any of the alleged activities.

11 hours ago, aurora said:

No. It is not normal to share illicit videos of you and your gf **** (as Finlay did) or illicitly taken nude photos of your workmates with other ppl you work with.

 

I would tend to agree with your assertions only I come from a generation that objectively seems to be less sensitive to the sharing of very intimate type images (ie: Instagram is borderline pornography). I think many young people are confused by the boundaries due to the oversharing of imagery of this nature. I am not excusing any of the alleged activities from this lawsuit, I'm purely stating that I don't think much can be considered 'normal' in such a rapidly evolving tech focused lifestyle.