Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cinnamonswirl

  • Rank
    Bronze Circle

Registration Profile Information

  • Connection to/interest in ballet** (Please describe. Examples: fan, teacher, dancer, writer, avid balletgoer)
    former ballet student, currently a balletomane
  • City**
    Washington, DC

Recent Profile Visitors

776 profile views
  1. I thought the overall concept was very clever and well-executed, and I would have liked to see it in person--I think some of the bad choreography would have bothered me less. I liked Snow and Marzipan. I thought Flowers was awful: repetitive, and the costumes were so ugly. The rest of the steps were unremarkable. For me, watching Schmacher's choreography just emphasized how wonderful Balanchine's choreography is. Agree with everyone Mira Nadon was lovely. So nice to see everyone dancing again.
  2. The documentary is very good. Also, the cast of children in the streaming version on Marquee is featured in the documentary so I found it nice to watch them after each other. I think I saw that the director is the same -- Larissa Bills.
  3. I don't think Ramasar has a very good defamation case either. He's likely a limited-purpose public figure for defamation purposes. Unsavory and inappropriate as his actions were, I personally think calling him a sexual predator is highly misleading. But from the NYT article, it seems like the protestors using that word are using it out of ignorance and carelessness (negligence), rather than malice, which is the standard public figures must meet in a defamation suit. Ramasar might have better luck moving for a gag order in the current case. He could also trying moving for a more limited ga
  4. Did anyone else catch Waterbury's Instagram story today in which she appeared to be offering to show Maxwell additional nude photos of herself (Maxwell) that Ramasar had sent? (To disprove Maxwell's statement that he only sent one photo of her). I found the idea of offering, on a public social media account, to show someone nude photos of themselves as a way of showing her that she too is a victim to be ... odd.
  5. TWB just announced on instagram that Katherine Barkman is joining the company permanently:
  6. This is one of the differences between being at at-will employee and an employee with a contract. An at-will employee may be fired at any time for anything, so long as the termination is not illegal (e.g., discriminatory). Similarly, an at-will employee can quit at any time. Contract employees can generally only generally be fired for specific reasons, which are outlined in the contact. They cannot quit at any time -- they have to work until the end of the contract, or the employer can sue for damages. As others have pointed out, it is to AGMA's benefit (and the dancers' in general) to e
  7. Even Catazaro and Ramasar prevail in challenging their firings, can't the company still sideline them by simply not casting them? They'd still be getting paid, but they wouldn't be dancing. NYCB contracts don't guarantee non-injured principals a certain number of performances a year, do they?
  8. NIED is negligent infliction of emotional distress and IIED is intentional infliction of emotional distress. Waterbury's NIED and IIED claims have a twist because they are indirect -- it wasn't NYCB that took the actions that caused her distress. Usually these claims are direct (like her claims against Finlay). A couple of people have asked me very specific questions that I don't feel comfortable answering off the top of my head. My posts have been based on my initial reaction to the complaint (issue spotting it, if you will). I haven't looked at case law or even the relevant statutes so
  9. Generally, there is no duty to rescue in the United States. If Ann sees Bob committing a tort or crime against Caleb, Ann owes no duty of care to help Caleb, absent a specific relationship between Ann and Caleb that creates a duty of care, or unless Ann created the hazardous situation. I guess Waterbury could argue that NYCB created the hazardous situation with Finlay. But I think that's a real stretch, and her complaint does not appear to lay the groundwork for such an argument, as it alleges that NYCB knew of his behavior, not that it caused the behavior. I believe no duty to rescue is
  10. Failure to state a complain compasses a couple of different concepts. The one I was specifically thinking of is that a complaint needs to allege a cause of action that is recognized by law. If the cause of action isn't recognized by law, then there is no claim. This goes back to the discussion that we were having earlier about duty. I'm not convinced the law recognizes a duty of care from NYCB to Waterbury. One does not owe a duty of care to all people at all times. To me, from a legal perspective the link between NYCB and Waterbury is too attenuated to be foreseeable. Of course that's m
  11. Depends on what the pattern was. Example: is it foreseeable to a reasonable person that someone who was habitually drunk at rehearsal and then got in a car to drive home would get into a car accident? Yes. Is it foreseeable that someone who was habitually drunk at rehearsal would surreptitiously take and disseminate nude photos? The answer to that is less obvious to me. Some people have mentioned what Waterbury may learn in discovery. I expect NYCB's lawyers will immediately move to dismiss the complaint, as regards NYCB, for failure to state a claim (or the New York state law equivalent)
  12. Yes, if Waterbury can show foreseeability, then she's a good ways towards showing duty. However, foreseeability is a very squishy area -- in law school, you probably spend about 1/4 of the semester going over it in torts. How likely does something have to be to be foreseeable to the reasonable person? (Reasonable person is the general legal standard in torts.) While I am skeptical about the viability of Waterbury's claims against NYCB based on the facts thus far, I am not trying to say that what she is alleging didn't happen. Rather, I am pointing out (maybe inarticulately) that all of t
  13. Yes, I was attempting to explain to (and quoted) a previous poster who was asking about hostile work environment and why Waterbury presumably didn't make that claim. Even negligence requires a legal duty owed by the tortfeasor to the injured party. The elements of negligence are: duty, breach, causation and damages. In your hypothetical, it is established law (both from case law and by statute, in most jurisdictions) that homeowners owe a duty to the public to not allow tree limbs to fall on passers by. Here, I don't see what duty NYCB owed Waterbury based on the facts presented; I am ha
  14. Waterbury didn't work for NYCB, so I don't think she would be successful with a hostile work environment claim. It would be different if a company member was making the claims. Even then, to be successful, the plaintiff must establish that the employer knew of the hostile work environment; generally this is accomplished by having complained to HR or the supervisor of someone creating the hostile work environment about specific conduct. I don't think general knowledge by the company that Finlay was showing up to rehearsals drunk and trashing hotel rooms would suffice. (Unless the company knew h
  15. It was the music from the Scottish jig, but Pereira wasn't doing the actual steps. She was just bouncing, goofing off. My guess is Pereira is debuting as Swanilda and Bouder was making a joke, "look at this new Swanilda being silly during rehearsal."
  • Create New...