On Pointe

5 hours ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

If given a choice between dealing with my email on my phone and dealing with it on a computer with a keyboard, I would choose the computer every time, and I'm pretty adept at typing on glass with my thumbs. 

Which makes it all the more curious that evidently the very first time Ms. Waterbury asked to use Finlay's computer,  he was in a cab on his way to the airport.

I think we all agree that Finlay was a cad and Ms. Waterbury has every right to be angry with him and make him pay to the fullest extent possible.  I just don't  buy the idea put forth in her suit that the supposed culture of NYCB and SAB make them responsible in any way for what he did.  The investigation into the background of SCOTUS  nominee Brett Kavanaugh  describes a "frat boy" atmosphere and antics at his all-boys Catholic prep school,  and at Yale University that far outstrip anything the ballet dancers got into regarding alcohol and maltreatment of females.  Yet Dr. Ford is not blaming Georgetown Prep,  Deborah Ramirez isn't blaming Yale for their alleged treatment.  (It's telling that previous nominee Neil Gorsuch  went to the same school,  but has never been accused of misbehavior.  Schools and employers can only control so much.  It's individuals who are responsible for their actions.

Apparently Waterbury and Finlay had a volatile relationship - in the interview she says when she first confronted him,  she wanted to know "if he was going to lie to me again".  He had to have known that she was already suspicious of him,  making the idea that he gave her his password even more stupid,  or more unlikely.  They had been together for some time at that point.  One would think he might have given it to her before the date she cites.

15 minutes ago, Helene said:

 

That they were apprentices would tie her allegation that it's all one big happy connection within the Company more strongly, especially for a party held in a hotel room arranged and paid for by NYCB during a NYCB tour.

 

The complaint states that the PNB dancer is a former SAB student.  There are SAB-trained dancers at ABT, as well as other connections, such as Longhitano, but not exclusively.

 

The latter, especially, is supposition stated as fact.   In the interview she describes these as texts, not emails, and people here have explained more than once the technology that would have made them visible when she logged onto his computer, so there was no need for her to search to find them.

If I were cheating on my partner, whether or not they were suspicious, or had confronted me before with their suspicions or evidence, I would be sure to have my devices on lockdown, not only to protect myself, but also the person on the other end of the conversations.  There would be no logical reason to give out my password.  If I did, I couldn't complain if I were nominated for the Darwin Award.

The complaint said that Finlay and others had been fined $150,000 for damages to the hotel.   That would typically happen when the hotel's insurance wouldn't cover it.  Whether NYCB had insurance for incidents that happen when the Company is on the road hasn't been disclosed.

What's wrong with NYCB dancers, including apprentices,  having a party?  Touring companies in particular tend to develop one big happy connection,  and there's nothing wrong with that either.

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.

The complaint says the dancers were "fined";  in the interview,  Ms. Waterbury claims that NYCB's insurance carrier paid for the damage.  Neither version has any bearing on Finlay sharing photos of her.  Plenty of guys who do that kind of thing are otherwise upstanding citizens.  

4 hours ago, Balletwannabe said:

So again about the hotel room...if this is true, NYCB has some 'splainin to do.  They should have fired him then.  How does destroying a hotel room not violate the code of conduct??

Accidents can happen,  which is why you have insurance.  Only water can do that amount of damage in a hotel setting.  It's possible that Finlay fell asleep with the water running.  If the destruction had been deliberate,  the insurance carrier would not have covered it.

I know very little about electronic devices beyond the basics.  Can someone tell me,  considering that according to the interview,  Ms. Waterbury had her phone with her and the battery was not dead (she was able to take screenshots) why would she need to access Finlay's computer to "check her email?  From the interview,  it appears that she was suspicious of Finlay cheating on her with other women and took the opportunity to search through his email to find evidence. 

As I surmised,  the "underage girls" referenced were dancers in the company,  not teenage groupies, which the language suggested.  I don't  see how it's significant that "the one thing that ties all these people together is NYCB and SAB."  (It's also inaccurate - there were dancers at ABT and PNB involved as well.)  That's where her boyfriend worked.  The same thing could have happened if he worked at Google. 

1 hour ago, Pique Arabesque said:

They ceased to be thoughts once they were communicated in the group chat.

I have heard that some apprenticeships can be offered at 17, but most company members are 18 and up. Though it is still not legal to drink alcohol between the ages of 18-20, you are still an adult. "Underage" specifically connotes someone who is under 18.

Jokes about non-consensual sex are not funny and reflect poorly on the character of those making the joke. Employers care about that. (Also, if the butt of the joke is that the corps woman found Finlay and Catazaro irresistibly attractive, then she would, in fact, be consenting to sex).

You bring up an interesting point - from the transcript,  there is no evidence that Finlay and Catazaro  were engaged in a group chat.  It appears to be a conversation between just the two of them.  Is a private communication between two people treated differently than a group chat by the law?

One could argue whether "underage" means under eighteen or under twenty-one.  While drinking under the age of twenty-one is against the law,  merely being in the presence of a young person at a social gathering where alcohol is served is not.  But "partying with underage girls" has a nice salacious ring to it,  what my high school English teachers would call "writing to persuade".  BTW in that same conversation,  they discuss the age of consent (they're wrong - it's seventeen in New York,  not eighteen)  and agree that "prime time" for women's bodies is "18-22.  It's crude and it's tasteless,  but it indicates that while young women appeal to them,  they aren't  considering underage girls.

Employers care about tasteless jokes in the workplace.  What happens on the employees' own time is literally not their business.  If the corps woman found the men irresistible and consented to sex,  that is the point I'm making.  It's possible to read it just that way.

At any rate,  Finlay has taken himself out of the picture.  If I were Catazaro,   I'd argue that any communication between the two should be off-limits regarding his just cause hearing.

23 minutes ago, nanushka said:

I note that you say three different things here about your interpretation of their words: (1) that it's "clearly" the right one; (2) that it's "just as likely" the right one; and (3) that it's "more likely" the right one. I find (2) barely plausible, but I can understand thinking that. (1) and (3) seem to me to be completely unsupported at this point.

Also, just because one is joking about rape doesn't mean one is "plotting rape." That's an exaggeration of how others are reading the quotation, I think.

I should have put "clearly" in quotes.  I hoped to illustrate merely that different people could interpret their words in different ways.

15 minutes ago, Pique Arabesque said:

Circulating nude images (some of which were taken without the subject's consent) and engaging in degrading talk are examples of disrespect towards colleagues. Regardless of how superficially polite they may have been in the studio, it is clear that they thought of some of their female colleagues as chattel. And just because Bouder hasn't gone through the extra effort to delete old photos doesn't mean that she approves of their behavior. As I have illustrated, bad behavior outside the workplace occasionally has consequences within the workplace. If these men had exercised better judgment, they would be dancing right now. They created this situation. They are not the victims here.

And furthermore, as I have also stated, NYCB allegedly knew about aspects of Finlay's behavior - the drunkenness, parties with underage girls - that crept into the rehearsal room and official NYCB tours.

Also, Finlay and Catazaro were clearly joking about rape (the text exchange re the corps dancer). Sex without consent - "giving her no choice" - is rape. (And Catazaro claims that he never saw the images of Waterbury).

While I am not negating these women's personal experiences, it is important to note that these are all principal women with social capital and influence. I also did not take their statements to be rebuttals of Waterbury. Placed in context, they reflected gratefulness for their long, successful careers.  That doesn't mean that the NYCB is immune from sexual misconduct. 

What "they  thought" does not matter.  They can think whatever they want.

A number of women in the company can be described as "underage girls".  If there is a party where "the company" is invited,  those dancers will likely be there.  The complaint makes it seem that there were only underage girls present,  which strikes me as highly unlikely.

Clearly Finlay and Catazaro  were joking about how they are so devastatingly attractive the girl would have "no choice" but to have sex with them.  That interpretation is just as likely - more likely - than the conviction that they were plotting rape.

23 minutes ago, Drew said:

Oh I was actually just editing my post to get rid of the word criminal--so point taken!

I don't think joking about rape is a hanging offense. I don't care for it either and think it can be destructive in the workplace.

Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar are not adolescent boys. (And not all adolescent boys behave with appalling disrespect to women. By a long shot.)

Men from every walk of life have done what Chase Finlay is alleged to have done or something like it or worse.  Yet some workplaces are worse when it comes to such things than others. Consistently. So things can be done to influence how people conduct themselves towards one another without veering off into thought control and fascism. Has NYCB done all it reasonably could have done over time on these issues? I've already said that I don't believe so.

That "ballet" generally shares in problems pervasive in our society is hardly a reason for people in the ballet world not to try to address those problems. Though it may be a reason to realize there is a limit to what can be done in any one given sphere without larger social movements. And I'm not yet prepared to give up on positive change altogether.

 

Have Finlay,  Catazaro  and  Ramasar  been accused of appalling disrespect towards their partners and other female dancers in their work at NYCB?  I don't  think  so.   Ashley Bouder still has photos of herself with all three on her Instagram.  If they had been problematic I don't  think they'd be there.  Evidently their adolescent  behavior does not extend to the workplace.

This really is a workplace issue,  whatever you think about what they did in their private lives.  Did  Catazaro and  Ramasar  fulfill the terms of their contracts and treat their work colleagues with respect?

32 minutes ago, Drew said:

These are serious concerns--I mostly wanted to indicate my strong conviction that a joke about giving a women "no choice" in matters of sex is a joke about rape not about "convincing." Still, it is worth remarking that these are not thoughts, but words. Private words (at last as far as is known) that became public because of criminal actions one of the two parties to the conversation is alleged to have committed. Having become public they impact the company and its employees, and the company might reasonably feel a need to address them.  In this case they decided to do so -- first through suspensions then firing; the union (and others) are arguing the last is over-reach. That will be determined in arbitration, not by me and not on this discussion board. As far as Waterbury's suit goes, likewise I leave it to the courts to determine ... But yes, when a (purported) crime is investigated (Finlay) other stuff, that might not be expected to come out, comes out. (And given that the point of her suit against the company is to argue that this case isn't just about Finlay, her case then has to show just that.  Though I continue to think that a suit against Finlay alone would still be a plenty big problem for the company.)

And once something comes out (for whatever reason) that has consequences.  And raises red flags which, even if the courts decide don't rise to the level to justify a suit against NYCB, might be worthwhile for the company to discuss. As indeed Barry Kerollis discusses in general terms regarding the ballet world -- not the specific case -- in the podcast Helene and Quiggin mentioned.

In terms of public perceptions, I will add that given that these words became public Catazaro's unwillingness to express regret (as Ramasar did in his second public statement) is all the more puzzling to me. I imagine that if you said something about co-worker that came out and caused "awkwardness," as in the scenario you invoke,  you might apologize  EVEN IF you were pissed off that something you thought was private became public and didn't think should have. Perhaps you would not, but I have seen exactly that scenario at my workplace.

 

 

Ms. Waterbury's case is a civil action.  It is yet to be determined that a criminal act took place.  It likely will never come to that.  At any rate,  it's the police that do the investigating. It's telling that the first version of the complaint did not include this conversation.  If it had been necessary for Merson to make his case,  it would have been in there.  (If the female dancer's name is included or easily guessed in a new version of the complaint,  it will be proof positive that the main motivation is to hurt and embarrass,  not seek justice.)  At any rate,  in my opinion,  Catazaro  and  Finlay  were not joking about rape.  As there are others here who feel otherwise,  one can conclude that we might represent  a microcosm of the public - some will find it a hanging offense and some will not.

I listened to the podcast and what Barry Kerollis calls toxic masculinity is behavior familiar to anyone who has spent time around adolescent boys,  whether they dance or play football.   They are not yet fully formed men and they tend to do silly things.  But men from every  walk of life have done what Chase Finlay is alleged to have done.  It's not a ballet problem,  it's a human problem.

I don't  think  we should think less of Catazaro  because he didn't  apologize.  He might have been advised to refrain from saying anything until this matter is adjudicated,  which would be good advice.  Or not.  

1 hour ago, Drew said:

If a date told me s/he was going to give me "no choice" about sex, I wouldn't assume I was in for a lot of great poetry; I would call a taxi...or, in some situations, 911.

In other words: "Leave them no choice" when the subject is sex? That's language referring to rape. (Uh...if it was a joke, then its being a joke argues in favor of the more obscene interpretation as much as ordinary usage-in-context does.)

I do tend to think the men in this case were joking, but...well...let's just say that if I had a colleague at work who made a joke like that about me and I found out about it, I would look into filing a complaint. And I probably would not feel comfortable working with that person.  The dancer at NYCB may feel differently--though I kind of doubt it--but that doesn't make that kind of joking the least bit less problematic for NYCB as a workplace for women and, indeed, for men.

In a non-sexual context,  I've thought and said a lot of things about people I've worked with that would have caused a great deal of awkwardness if they had known about them.    Rod Rosenstein is in very hot water over an offhand remark he had no reason to believe would be published in the New York Times.  Ms. Waterbury  is not the only person with a right of privacy.  As the exchange between Catazaro  and  Finlay  had nothing to do with her,  they only served to embarrass Catazaro  and imperil his career.  What the two of them said on their own time is their own business.  They didn't  post it to Facebook or publish it in any form.  This policing of adults' private thoughts smacks of fascism.

25 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.

Did you read the exchange?  Describing it as joking about rape is an enormous stretch.

3 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

 

And no one is trying to police male sexuality - if Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar wanted to talk about how hot Jennifer Lawrence is, that would be their business. The issue was the nonconsensual distribution of photos and the company that allegedly overlooked it.

Catazaro didn't  see the photos of Waterbury  and he didn't  distribute them.  As the first time this behavior became known was when Ms. Waterbury  brought her suit,  how could NYCB "overlook" behavior the company was completely  unaware of?

3 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

An NYCB job is an enormous privilege - not a right - and I imagine that dancers are expected to elevate themselves beyond "street corner" talk. And this is not unprecedented - a few years ago, several incoming Harvard first-years lost their places at the university when racist group chat messages that circulated among them were discovered. (And if you don't want something to be public, you shouldn't put in in print.)

NYCB is an employer,  not a school.  They are limited in their ability to police the lives of their employees,  just like any other employer.  There is no reason to expect adults to elevate their private thoughts and conversations to conform to somebody else's standard.  It may have been street corner language,  but they weren't standing on a street corner shouting it during work hours.

I looked at the exchanges made between the would-be Harvard freshmen and they are truly vile.  (They are easy to find if you're curious  but be warned,  they're horrible.)  In no way, shape or form do they resemble the exchange between Catazaro  and  Finlay. 

1 hour ago, aurora said:

Um. what? It is not intrinsic.

It is pervasive but your argument seems to be therefore that no change is needed or wanted. 

Change is both needed and wanted by women,  but there is no greater illustration of the imbalance between men and women in our culture than the spectacle of the Senate Judiciary Committee preparing to treat Christine Blasey  Ford exactly the way they treated Anita Hill over twenty years ago.  Some of the same guys will be doing the probing.  Men like lording  it over women.

33 minutes ago, aurora said:

 

Also "there is nothing any school or company can do that will stop consenting adults,  or minors,  from having sex" is a ridiculous argument. Of course there isn't. And no law is going to stop all robberies, murders or rapes either (people are still going to do all those things!), but that doesn't mean we say OH WELL! and not have or enforce these laws.

Sex between consenting adults is not against the law.  Sexual attraction can not be regulated.  If you have any suggestions as to how a ballet school can stop female students from swooning over handsome company stars please put them forth.  What do you think NYCB and SAB should be doing that will prevent any more Waterbury  situations?

6 hours ago, Fraildove said:

On Pointe,

Again, if you reread my post I said ‘maybe in her head’, meaning her opinion. Obviously she feels like there is evidence that makes NYCB culpable. And it is her right to file a suit. It is the court that decides if there is anything in the lawsuit that can move on to the next phase after it is filed. She doesn’t need to prove anything to us. She technically doesn’t need any proof to file a suit although it would be difficult to get an attorney who works on contingency to do so without some evedience. But the key word in my statement was in her head. I never once said whether or not I think NYCB is responsible. This was a hypothetical reasoning like so many of your examples. As I said in my post, if I were in her position, and felt that this happened because of a bigger problem, I would name what I felt to be the bigger problem and try and get some real change in the company.

 

In my own experience as a professional dancer what Ma Waterbury is claiming is not too far out of the norm from what my own experiences were. The enormous power that AD’s and School directors have, the influence that principals have over newer and younger dancers, the feeling that because boys/men are a precious commodity that they could literally do as they pleased without fear of reprimand due to their status where if a female student or dancer was to do anything similar they would be kicked out of the school/company. Just curious what your own experiences were like. And if I misinterpreted in my thought that you might have been a professional ballet dancer then I apologize.

I was a ballet dancer and one time member of AGMA,  but I spent most of my career performing on Broadway.  I have observed preferential treatment given to male dancers over female dancers in ballet,  although that may not be as prevalent now that there are many more men in the profession.  There was also preferential treatment for thinner dancers,  dancers with the highest extensions,  dancers with the best feet,  dancers with the prettiest faces.  In an aesthetic art form,  some will be preferred and valued over others.

Company and school directors wield enormous power because it's necessary for the running of the institutions.  Bosses are bosses on every job.  (During the recent action against sexual harassment  at McDonald's,  women workers described how male managers had such power over their lives that some routinely demanded sex from them during their shift if they requested so much as a schedule change.  And all they're doing is selling hamburgers.)  In artistic institutions,  like symphony orchestras and ballet companies,  where there are many more talented artists than there are jobs,  the power of the bosses to make or break a career is overwhelming,  but there seems no remedy for that,  except to demand that their actions be transparent with some semblance of fairness.

Ms. Waterbury  is angry at Chase Finlay and she's taken action against him,  rightly so.  

4 hours ago, lmspear said:

If Waterbury can inspire that kind of change, we might be seeing the balletic equivalent, in terms of impact, of the Libby Zion case.  That case changed the rules about how many consecutive hours medical residents are allowed to be on call.  The New York State medical establishment reevaluated and restructured their training programs.  Her father Sidney Zion was the force leading to the systemic reforms. His NY Times obituary provides a brief summary of the events leading too and resulting from his daughter's death.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/nyregion/03zion.html

 

I remember the Libby Zion case well,  as the trial was televised on Court TV.  While it brought about welcome changes in the training of new physicians,  what was most memorable to me was how it consumed the lives of not just her father but her brothers as well.  Their various legal actions,  that went on for years,  were attempts primarily to punish the doctors and the hospital where Libby was treated.    They even tried to get the doctors indicted for murder.  Concern for the well being of overworked interns was not the family's motivation.  They wanted revenge,  which they never got as all of the doctors involved retained the ability to practice medicine.

In the Waterbury  case,  nobody died,  no one was battered,  and all of the sex was consensual.  It doesn't  meet the criteria for "revenge porn".  Finlay was a cad and a boor,  but it's  highly unlikely that there will be any criminal charges.  This is a private dispute that Merson is trying to make institutional.  There is nothing any school or company can do that will stop consenting adults,  or minors,  from having sex,  and sexual relationships always have the potential of going sideways and hurting the participants.

A company-wide seminar on sexual harassment,  and warning against the making and sharing of intimate images is an excellent idea.  But it wasn't  the culture of the ballet studio that brought Ms. Waterbury  to grief.  It was Chase Finlay.

1 hour ago, TripleAxel61 said:

That wasn't said: "In her head, regardless what her attorny’s motives might be, perhaps she is naming both the school and company in the complaint to force a change in the status quo. To finally call out the atmosphere of demoralizing women in order to force NYCB’s hand to make real change and not just do lip service."

If any school or institution has the ability to change the "atmosphere of demoralizing women",  given that it is an intrinsic part of much of male-female relations,  they should convey their method to the world.  It occurs in the lowest rungs of society all the way to Congress,  the White House,  the Catholic Church,  the military,  the Ivy League and the Supreme Court,  to name just a few.  It's ironic that male ballet dancers,  who actually get to handle female bodies as a part of their job,  still get aroused by photos of women,  like most other men.  That's hard wired and not going to change.  What can change is the socialization that makes some men,  like Finlay,  believe they are entitled to use a woman's body as they wish.  But that socialization starts in the home,  long before boys get to the ballet studio.

46 minutes ago, Fraildove said:

Thank you, Drew. I couldn’t agree more. As someone who has personally has been through sexual violence, it hurts all over again when I read comments that could be misconstrued to suggest that Ms. Waterbury is the one causing problems. She did not do this. And if she feels that the actions taken by several men at NYCB were a result of an atmosphere that allowed these men to think they were above reprimand then she has every right to sew the company, School and anyone else she feels contributed in some way. This does not mean the court will agree, but she still has the right. She is the victim here as are the other women whose photos were shared without their knowledge or consent. I do not think the lawsuit’s goal is to ‘take down NYCB’. Otherwise the scope would be set quite a bit larger. If we are all now making assumptions on her motives this is mine, as it would be what I would be thinking in her place:

in her head, regardless what her attorny’s motives might be, perhaps she is naming both the school and company in the complaint to force a change in the status quo. To finally call out the atmosphere of demoralizing women in order to force NYCB’s hand to make real change and not just do lip service.

 

Where is there any evidence that NYCB or SAB are in the business of demoralizing women?

17 minutes ago, Drew said:

One person's revenge may be another person's justice. Or her self-affirmation in the face of mistreatment.

In any case, Waterbury didn't create this situation and has every right to seek redress for what was done to her from whatever parties she thinks bears responsibility. For whatever motive. That is, unless it was established that she was a liar,  her motives seem to me a non-issue, and the company's own investigation confirms that they found her concerns to have some basis in truth. (Though the details of what they confirmed remain confidential.)

Her lawyer thinks there may be a case against more parties than Finlay. The courts may well decide otherwise--NYCB obviously thought and probably still thinks so, as do many here. But her suit is a response to things done TO her and around her; the damage to NYCB's reputation was done by others.

(I'll add that the idea that NYCB's reputation wouldn't be hurt if Waterbury only sued Finlay seems dubious to me--of course other names and stories were going to be part of the case against him. He was sharing photos and video with other employees at NYCB--Ramasar at the least--who also happens to be one of their biggest male stars. How was NYCB's reputation NOT going to take a hit on the basis even of the case against Finlay?)

Anyone can think what they want about Waterbury, but if NYCB or its dancers, for example, were to take the position that SHE is the source of their problems, I suspect their reputation would take another hit.

I find turning the case into an excuse to bash Martins for everything from firing Suzanne Farrell to not having Balanchine's gnomic wisdom to be absurd. (Bash him FOR firing Farrell if you like--that's a different matter.) And the implication of pieces like Bentley's that in Balanchine's day all was high-minded self-sacrifice and that in Martins' day all became narcissistic self-glorification seems to me itself a piece of narcissism and disrespectful of many great artists. But that's very different from simply giving the company a pass on everything that has happened while insinuating and/or stating that it's somehow Waterbury's fault.  

I don't  disagree with you.  Ms. Waterbury  was done wrong.  But it was by Chase Finlay,  not NYCB.  She is entitled to seek redress in any manner that she chooses.  But huge chunks of her complaint are boiler plate nonsense,  cooked up by a lawyer looking to get his hands in the deepest pockets in the vicinity.  When the dust settles,  which could take years,  I don't  expect this to have had much effect on her career.  People tend to forget this kind of low level scandal quickly.  I really think that NYCB overreacted.

22 hours ago, cobweb said:

Thanks for this concise summary On Pointe. I also question whether this is justification to fire Catazaro. If you have the time and energy to provide an equally clear summary of the charges against Ramasar, I would be interested to hear it. 

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.  Ramasar definitely does ask Finlay for photos and videos.  But the only person who mentions Ms. Waterbury by name (as "Alex") is Craig Hall.  Considering all that this Craig Hall is alleged to have texted and done,  more than Ramasar,  far more than Catazaro,  it's curious that he is not named as a defendant.  Ramasar seems to have sent photos of only one woman,  who is possibly a willing participant.

22 hours ago, volcanohunter said:

I am of the view that a company is entitled to terminate employees if their behavior damages the company's reputation, even if that behavior took place off site and off hours.

I have no idea whether that sort of condition is written into NYCB contracts, but it's certainly been included in some of mine.

Most of the claims against the defendants are ridiculous and will certainly be thrown out - like but for the existence of NYCB and SAB,  Ms. Waterbury  would not have met Chase Finlay,  therefore the company and school owe her damages.  But it's as if the lawsuit itself is an act of revenge,  no matter what the outcome.

1 hour ago, Helene said:

What I think it is that it's interesting that there's any suggestion that AGMA needs to do anything but argue that the Company doesn't have the right to fire Catazaro because the offenses didn't happen on Company time, and that the argument has followed the path many other national arguments: 1. He didn't do anything 2. He didn't do anything on work time 3. Even if he did do something, it wasn't so bad after all.

We'll find out whether NYCB has the right to fire Catazaro and Ramasar when the arbitrator decides.

I left Ramasar out of the discussion because his alleged actions directly involved the photos of Ms. Waterbury .   (That doesn't  mean I necessarily  believe he should be fired because of them.)  The complaint continues to include his name after the Catazaro  material,  indicating  Merson thinks his actions are more egregious.  Finlay took himself out of it.  Considering his actions alone,  why did Catazaro deserve to be fired?

It seems that,  as far as the mainstream media is concerned,  the NYCB story doesn't have legs (pardon the pun).  Could be because the Kavanaugh  nomination is so critical to the nation,  and fraught with drama,  that it's driven other sexual misconduct stories off the radar.  Meanwhile I've had time to go over the amended complaint and I have to ask those who genuinely believe that firing Zachary Catazaro  was justified:  why?

Catazaro did not take photos of the complainant,  apparently did not see them or share them,  and he was the previously unnamed male principal who refused to participate in Chase Finlay's sexual harassment  schemes.  His greatest sin appears to be sharing a photo of a woman's breasts where that woman's face is not visible.  That,  and a couple of texts using language that,  while crude,  can be heard on every street corner in the US.  None of this was intended to be public.  After that descriptive passage,  Catazaro is barely mentioned.  For that he loses his career?  It doesn't  seem fair or proportionate punishment to me.

If Catazaro  had been a problematic employee in the past,  it would have been known to NYCB management long before the Waterbury case.  So unless he's got a body in a fridge somewhere,  why was he fired when,  as alleged in the complaint,  dancers who were involved in domestic violence and rape were not?  I could be wrong of course,  but I predict that AGMA will recommend  he be reinstated,  with back pay.  I'm interested in hearing other views.

Farrell's return certainly disrupted the careers of other dancers,  who had been performing her former roles in her absence,  and now found themselves second cast.  Peter Martins became her partner instead of Kay Mazzo's.  Balanchine resumed favoring her over others.  Not everyone was happy about her return.

44 minutes ago, Helene said:

Discovery is not an investigation. 

If I were he, and was trying to make a case about the environment that in which The Powers That Be knew about, but never disciplined bad behavior properly and sent a message that the men were above the law, I'd ask for records of all complaints 

Cuban was not fully exonerated, and was called out especially in the case of Hyde.  There were two offices, and he worked primarily in a different office than the executives who purportedly were in charge.  

Cuban suffered no consequences from the investigation.