On Pointe

My point is that he could ask, but NYCB and SAB could refuse to comply. He would have to persuade a judge that he had a right to this data. Even if they did so voluntarily (highly unlikely), discovery can be expensive and time-consuming. The cost would not be covered by contingency fees. Ms. Waterbury could find herself on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars and still lose the case.

That was an investigation of a hostile workplace environment case, where the behavior of some male employees toward female employees was flagrant and outrageous. Why and how could Merson launch a similar investigation at NYCB when Ms. Waterbury never worked there? NYCB might have an obligation to disclose this information to AGMA, but not to all comers. It is notable that even though Mavericks owner Mark Cuban worked in the same offices and should have been aware of what was going on, (he admitted as much and made a $10,000,000 donation to women's organizations - a nuisance amount given his vast wealth) he was exonerated by the investigation.

"Many dancers at NYCB have been students at Columbia - my apologies for the past tense evidently not being clear. If an adult former Columbia student dated a Columbia professor and it ended badly, it does not follow that Columbia University is at fault.

Ms. Waterbury doesn't cite a single example at SAB to bolster her assertion, even anonymously, and it would take more than one to establish a pattern. Employers are limited in their ability to discipline the private behavior of their employees.

Those cases have not been decided in the plaintiffs' favor. Even if they were, the George Washington University case involved two people who were students together, and the NYU case involved a harassment case between a grad student and the head of his department. Neither case is relevant to the Waterbury suit.

All of Merson's allegations could be true regarding a lack of a policy regarding NYCB and SAB. However what is the bearing on this case? The plaintiff is not a student at SAB at the present time, and she makes no claim that she began a relationship with defendant Finlay when she was a student there. She makes no claim that any NYCB member "groomed" her as a minor student. She is not now, and never has been a member of NYCB, so she has no standing to claim her treatment by Finlay was part of a hostile work environment. Columbia University, where she is a current student, has had its share of sexual misconduct and campus rape allegations. Many dancers at NYCB have been students at Columbia. If one of those dancers dated a Columbia professor who mistreated her in the same manner as Finlay allegedly mistreated Waterbury, that dancer would have a case against him, but she wouldn't have standing to sue Columbia, and try to bolster her claim by citing alleged defects in their policy on student-instructor relations.

The military is unique in that its members voluntarily give up some of their rights. For example, officers can be court-martialed for committing adultery, even when the sexual partner is a civilian. While religious employers can require their employees to follow certain moral strictures or lose their jobs, ordinary civilian employers, like NYCB, are limited in how much control they have over employees' lives. SAB and NYCB may be able to put together a policy forbidding relationships between company members and students, but there is no way they can control the sex lives of the dancers when they don't involve students. Ms. Waterbury was not a minor, not a student, not a company member. Finlay had every right to pursue a relationship with her. It's taking photos and distributing them without her consent that was a moral violation. Curiously the complaint is silent as to what happened after Ms. Waterbury found the emails. She finds them in May and sues NYCB in September. Did she confront Finlay and demand an apology? The complaint mentions that she was hurt because she thought of Ramasar as a friend. Did they have it out? Was there any effort to resolve the conflict before she engaged Merson? She's not required to include the info but it will all come out in court, if it gets that far.

If Ms. Waterbury hadn't needed to "check her email", she might never have known about the invasion of her privacy. There are terms used interchangeably in the complaint that confuse the issues, which is likely deliberate. The amended complaint describes a lot of sex going on with a lot of people, students, dancers and their spouses. (Not Longhitano though. He strikes me as a sad wannabe trying to live a fantasy life by hanging out with handsome male stars.) There are kinky elements to these relationships, like the threesomes and the husband sending out nude photos of his wife. But one could conclude that some of the photo sharing may have taken place with the knowledge and consent of the women involved. Not Ms. Waterbury, who according to the complaint, was in over her head. She was taken advantage of by a snake. Her treatment could be considered emotional abuse, but there's nothing in the complaint alleging harassment, hazing, or physical abuse.

I chose eighteen for a reason. Still quite young, but a legal adult nevertheless. I agree that an eighteen year old dating a twenty-eight year old is not a good idea, but it's not illegal. A sixteen year old with a twenty-eight year old is illegal, and a really bad idea! In that case the law supersedes any school or company policy anyway.

I think we are reacting as if Merson's assertions are true. But as the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. While there have been unequal relationships between dancers and students in the past, there isn't any evidence presented that it is either rampant or much of a problem. It would be difficult to craft a policy forbidding, for example, an eighteen year old NYCB dancer from dating an eighteen year old SAB student. They could even be legally married in New York.

Many company members are the same age or just a bit older than advanced students at SAB. New members would have been recent SAB students anyway, so it wouldn't be unusual or improper for there to be relationships between them. While the students may be starstruck and awestruck by their presence, the company members are not in positions of authority over them.

Do company members participate in rehearsals and partnering classes, and if they do, are they volunteers or is it a requirement of their contract?

That photo of Ashley Laracey is glorious.

And brazenly, in the amended complaint, Merson uses the fact that the dancers were suspended and then fired by the company against NYCB.

The complaint states that they "met at NYCB", which a casual reader could reasonably infer that they both worked there, but they didn't. She could have been sitting on the fountain or standing on the mezzanine. If they had met at SAB it would have been included as it bolsters her case.

It matters big time. Many of SAB's students are young children. Distributing salacious photos of them could be considered trafficking in child pornography, a serious Federal crime which can land perpetrators in prison for many years. No one is making that accusation.

It could. But in Merson's case at least, I don't think so. It doesn't matter to the outcome.

She never joined NYCB. See, Merson's tactics are working, even on us!

So why weren't the other dancers named in the complaint, even if they aren't defendants? The complaint warrants careful reading. A number of those accused of sharing the images are "employees of NYCB", not dancers. They could be musicians, stage hands, wardrobe staff, even janitors. Presumably these individuals were not also former students of SAB or dancers in the company, and thus not subject to their supposed malign influence. That's an interesting legal question. Ms. Waterbury, according to the amended complaint, is now twenty-one, which indicates that she was an adult while still a student at SAB. Is a school, any school, presumed to be acting in loco parentis when the student is not a child? Merson and Waterbury's motives are quite clear- they want money, from the deepest pockets available. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend this is basically some kind of moral crusade.

Ms. Waterbury would not have been subject to unlawful conduct if her parents had not sent her to ballet school in the first place, so why doesn't she sue them? The defendants are not the only adults in this scenario. Ms. Waterbury met Chase Finlay as an adult (if she had been a minor Merson would have featured that fact front and center), and she willingly entered into a sexual relationship with him. He's the one responsible for the violation against her, not NYCB. The only reason Merson is attempting to make this a systemic issue instead of a personal one is to maximize any monetary damages she might win, of which he would receive a substantial share.

The defendants did not communicate any sexual material through social media. How can it be proven what the dancers "felt" they could do? Evidently every male dancer didn't get the message, because only a handful have been accused.

Even if the company "knew about and condoned" the defendants' bad acts - in my opinion a specious argument at best - it doesn't change the fact that Finlay, Ramasar and Catazaro acted as individual adults. Unless Merson thinks he can make the case that NYCB is some kind of criminal enterprise, in the business of not only churning out miscreants but directing their activities, it doesn't follow that NYCB can in any way be responsible for their actions.

This may prove to be the crux of the case. Yes, Finlay, Ramasar and Catazaro are grown adult men, but Waterbury's complaint against NYCB puts forth the theory that the company has a duty to monitor their thoughts, communications and activities, as if they were lacking in capacity and personal agency. Even minors can be held legally responsible for their own actions if they have reached an age where the court deems they should know right from wrong. If parents can't be held responsible in those situations, how does it follow that an employer can be held responsible for what adult employees do on their own time? It doesn't matter whether the activity is legal, illegal, or in this case, rests in a gray area in between. If Finlay, Catazaro and Ramasar decided to rob a bank between performances, they could be held to account for committing a crime, but the bank doesn't have a case against the NYCB.

Even during work hours, employees have their "own time" - lunch, bathroom breaks, etc. During rehearsal, there are AGMA mandated break times, during which dancers are free to do whatever they please, like snack or check their email. Unless communications were sent using company provided devices, in the middle of a performance or rehearsal, the "work hours" argument is unlikely to hold water.

Merson is trying to turn this lawsuit into a sort of quasi class action, ostensibly on behalf of minor students at SAB and female members of the NYCB. (Of course none of them would share in any damages he might win.) The problem is that Ms. Waterbury isn't a minor, isn't a student at SAB, and isn't a member of NYCB. She has no standing to make a case on their behalf.