fordhambae

1 hour ago, FPF said:

They should be concerned about appropriate behavior according to the norms of the company. Like it or not, how an employee behaves reflects on their employer. None of the behavior that is being condemned strikes me as normal/appropriate for a person of any age.

I will point out that the masses engage in picture sharing of all natures on a round the clock basis (ie: Snapchat). Whether it is appropriate is one thing but normal it most certainly is.

22 minutes ago, Helene said:

The rebuttal to the lawsuit says they were unaware, they did not approve, and they are not responsible.  They did not deny that the behavior happened, and the firings were justified by the impact the behavior had on establishing "[a] workplace where our dancers and staff feel respected and valued."

Whether they have the authority to do so will be a matter of arbitration (at least at this point), which takes laws and precedents into account as well as the contract, as the contract is subject to laws, regardless of what is written.  

I wouldn't feel like a respected and valued employee if I had been associated with an institution for 20+ years (school, apprentice, corps, soloist, principal) only to have the company turn their back on me for an out of work activity without a chance to redeem or better myself.

I can only imagine that other dancers will now be concerned about what is and isn't appropriate behavior according to the 'norms' of the company. What might be 'norm' for a billionaire board member is very different from a 'norm' of a 20 something year old.

13 minutes ago, Secret said:

NYCB: “A workplace where our dancers and staff feel respected and valued is our highest obligation.” 

Yet their rebuttal against Waterbury's lawsuit is all of the allegations “which were off-hours activities that were not known, approved, or facilitated by NYCB.”, yet they fired people based on off hours activities.

What exactly does this statement about the workplace have to do with the matter at hand. There seem to be a lot of PR moves by the company going on, as somebody has previously mentioned.

2 minutes ago, nanushka said:

I thought there was a reference to the sharing of a photo of a company dancer taken (surreptitiously, I thought) while she was changing. Is that not accurate? 

Yes there was, do we know if this was tied to either Catazaro or Ramasar? We still don't know who these "9 men" are.

12 minutes ago, onxmyxtoes said:

The complaint lists that photos of NYCB female dancers were shared, but what complicates this is knowing that many male dancers date female dancers in company. There leaves open the possibility that nude photos were taken willingly but the sharing was unknown. The way the complaint is written, it almost suggests that the male dancers were taking photos of the women without their knowing and then distributing. If anyone remembers reading otherwise, I am open to being corrected.

This seems correct, there was never any allegation that other individuals photos were shared without their knowledge, that is just the presumption based on the lawsuit. If this is the case, would those terminations (other than Mr. Finlay) be considered unjust? Perhaps this is why the union stated they seek to arbitrate the matter for the other's involved.

5 hours ago, Rick said:

Did Catazaro deny receiving Waterbury's explicit photos, or just that he did not ask for them?

"I did not initiate, was not involved in, or associated with any of Alexandra Waterbury's personal material that was allegedly shared with others."

Yes he stated that he had no involvement with Waterbury's allegations. There were mentions in the lawsuit of 'other' sharing of texts but it was not attached to Waterbury herself. If this is the case then the firings are collateral in the fallout over the lawsuit and subsequent press.

49 minutes ago, Ilovegiselle said:

That’s quite a horrible thing to say without knowing all the facts.  

 

I agree, there are definitely people on both sides of the spectrum writing here.

Type a) lets wait to find out the facts, not just take allegations as fact...

Type b) he resigned so he's guilty and deserves whatever happens....

I personally am not a lawyer, nor am I the courts, nor am I god. I don't know all of the facts, I haven't seen the evidence and beyond that I have a Judaeo-christian upbringing and believe in forgiveness and hope that deep down there is some goodness in us all.

8 minutes ago, Helene said:

"Criminal charges" was in the quote to which proof was referenced.

Scharff did not describe the activities: he only said that they had to do with communications that violated company norms.

He said zero about how the images in the communications were taken or obtained in the first place. He did not speak to whether Findlay too them without Waterbury knowing or whether Findlay sent them without her permission.

My speculation refers to him 'deserving' anything.

18 minutes ago, Helene said:

It is speculation that Findlay will not face criminal charges.  Waterbury has not decided whether to press them, and then it's up to the prosceutor's office.

It is not correct that definitive proof is needed to get an indictment and have to face criminal charges.  Those standards are less than those for trials themselves. 

And, as has been discussed several times upthread, there are two separate laws, and only for revenge porn, which is separate from taking images without the subject knowing, is intent to harm relevant.

I never suggested anything about definitely proof needed for an indictment. 

10 minutes ago, balanchinefreak said:

I'm not a lawyer, but there is a concept that basically says, "The thing speaks for itself." 

There's no point in my elaborating to someone who doesn't grasp that concept.

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/

In the article provided the ending states "In sum, though the Court wrote on numerous occasions that the acts of the defendant were morally reprehensible and offensive, it ultimately held that as charged, the claims against the defendant were not sufficient." 

3 hours ago, balanchinefreak said:

This is true. Chase will probably never face the criminal charges he so richly deserves. Another reason not to feel sorry for him.

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.

2 minutes ago, Helene said:

Actually, it does: for example, in #52, Ramasar solicited (quote provided in the complaint) the photos/videos -- with two exclamation points, and in #53, Finlay complied. 

Ah yes you are correct, my apologies. The lawsuits states in section 6 that this sharing occurred exclusively at the NYC Ballet and on tv she stated that her material "was sent to at least 9 men if not more". We haven't heard about these other individuals, except as you stated above in section 52.

1 hour ago, FITTB85 said:

I don’t think getting money out of NYCB is her objective. I think her objective is to expose the misogynistic behavior of some of its company members who violated her. 

We don't know who and if it was other company members violated her. The lawsuit does not state that her material was shared with those other dancers you mentioned, it just states that they were involved in their own sharing of inappropriate material. I think that is important to note. As stated previously, the lawsuit is rather sloppily written and parts have caused confusion about this.

58 minutes ago, Helene said:

If it's deliberate guerilla warfare, I don't know why anyone would expect the thoroughness or tactics of a white shoe law firm, at least one of which NYCB has at its disposal, from a small practitioner.  Merson's job is to win on behalf of his clients, so that he gets paid, no more or less than the lawyers at big firms.

One thing to consider if that the outcome of this case may be deemed as a landmark case in these types of cases and therefore regardless of whether Merson wins or not, he will be championed for that. Its possible that this is the motivation on his end.