On Pointe

This story is big news because it's about sex, money, and rich white people. A plus is that those people are so goodlooking, when the screen version of this story is made, they'll have a hard time finding actors as attractive as the real people. Was Chase Finlay even born when Martins got into his domestic violence incident? Waterbury wasn't. Connecting the two incidents is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. In other news, McDonald's workers are participating in a one day strike against "rampant" sexual harassment. It's everywhere.

I'm not sure what's so horrible about having worked under Martins. I am reminded of the exchange between Tom Hanks as Captain Phillips, in the film of that name, and Farah Abdi as the Somali pirate: "I got bosses." "We all got bosses." We all got bosses indeed, and not one of them is perfect.

A new AD will not prevent the Chase Finlays of the world from screwing over their girlfriends. It was his action that started all this, and now it's turned into a ballet blame game, with everyone else somehow responsible. None of this would be known or talked about, even in the international press, if NYCB had just given Waterbury the money when she asked for it. (Besides the Guardian, the AP piece has been picked up by the Daily Mail, a definitely down-market periodical, where the prevailing sentiment is absolute astonishment that there are so many straight ballet dancers.)

One could argue that the mistake made was the rush to judgment, and the destruction of two dancers' careers, before there was a full investigation. Whenever a negative story emerges involving NYCB - and they've had their share - the discussion quickly degenerates into a blanket condemnation of every aspect of the company, the leadership, the current dancers compared to the dancers of the storied past, how Balanchine's ballets are currently being danced, etc. Predictably, as the comments to Bentley's article demonstrate, there are calls for abandoning ballet altogether. In other arts organizations, when wrongdoing is discovered, it is considered a matter of individuals behaving badly, not intrinsic to the art form itself. There have been no opinion pieces from second string violinists who played with the New York Philharmonic under Bernstein, blaming the alleged violent sexual and psychological abuse of female players by a few star players on the music director and or orchestral playing. There has been no call to boycott CBS because of the horrific treatment of female producers by Les Moonves and others. (Linda Bloodworth Thomason's account in the Hollywood Reporter is stomach-churning.) Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein, and so many others are indeed considered "bad apples", and while there is plenty of criticism of the film industry, nobody is calling for its elimination, or claiming that things were so much better in "the golden age" of Hollywood. (They were probably worse.) What is it about ballet that elicits this type of response?

What's vile about it?

I just noticed that in the Waterbury complaint, at point 33 it's claimed that her photo was sent "to a pimp" by NYCB "employees", not a dancer. If it had been a dancer, a principal dancer, or Finlay, Catazaro, or Ramasar, it would have said that. Who are these nameless minions? I suppose Merson has a reason for outing some of the alleged bad actors but not all, but I can't figure out what it is. (It also isn't clear why this info - if it happened - is germane to the case.) At point 29, it's claimed that there are men in the company who have committed rape and acts of domestic violence, and that these acts were well-known to company members and talked about. The arbitrators are going to want to know why these men were neither suspended nor fired for violent illegal acts, but Catazaro and Ramasar were, for things that might have been in bad taste, but not illegal. (Again, assuming these claims are true.)

The arbitrators will determine if NYCB can reasonably impose a standard of behavior that is carried on outside of work hours, privately. The company talks about their "norms", but they have to demonstrate that those norms are not just generally known about, but specifically stated in company employment materials. The arbitrators will want to know about the dancers' work histories - have they been warned or disciplined multiple times in the past for unprofessional behavior?

Here is an excellent article about just cause termination: https://www.laboremploymentperspectives.com/2013/05/20/do-you-know-the-seven-factors-that-comprise-just-cause/ From the article: "As for application to traditional labor environments, Professor Carol Daugherty developed in 1966 a seven-part “just cause” analysis. The seven factors are the following: The employee knew of the company’s policy The company’s policy was reasonable The company investigated to determine that the employee violated the policy The investigation was fair and objective Substantial evidence existed of the employee’s violation of the policy The company’s policy was consistently applied The discipline was reasonable and proportional (the punishment fit the crime) Labor arbitrators still largely apply this analysis today. If a company cannot meet these factors, a union’s grievance will have a greater chance of being sustained."

The Finlay affair seems to have morphed into a referendum and condemnation of Peter Martins. Those who don't like him seem to think this situation is all his fault. (Toni Bentley's piece suggests to a casual reader that Alexandra Waterbury is a member of NYCB.) Bentley may be correct about the "soft-core porn" influence which permeates many aspects of media. But does she think that Balanchine or Kirstein would have found all of her writings laudable? Her work is part of the wave.

Those are questions that may come up in court if the lawsuit goes forward. The arbitration will only decide whether or not firing Catazaro and Ramasar was just termination. How did they comport themselves at work?

According to NYCB's own statement, Catazaro and Ramasar were fired in part because of the impact of their conduct on the NYCB community. If this is true, reticent or not, the opinions of those who do not want them around won out over those of their friends. Did Catazaro and Ramasar make other dancers feel uncomfortable, threatened, abused, or didn't they?

But nobody here can say for certain how the dancers would react. Would they be so outraged that they would demand the firing of Catazaro and Ramasar, who did not take the photos and (weren't the only ones who saw them)? ETA some here are conflating photos taken of Ms. Waterbury in a sexual situation with photos taken of a dancer changing costume. No way am I suggesting that the two situations are the same. There has been no allegation that there were photos shot or circulated of any NYCB dancers in intimate situations.

NYCB may have lost the arbitration already, based on their own statement: They admit that Catazaro and Ramasar were fired because their "private actions". If I were sitting on that arbitration panel it would be case closed. (But I'm not, so who's to say how this will play out.) It may not be unbelievably painful for the female dancers to have photos of themselves in states of undress passed around to a few male colleagues. Not that I think they liked it, but dancers tend to be far more comfortable than the general public with exposing their bodies. Case in point, Ashley Bouder proudly displaying her bare behind on her Instagram. (For that matter, so are professional models. In many of the shots on Ms. Waterbury's Instagram, she is very scantily clad.) At point 50 in the complaint, it is alleged that an illicit photo of a female soloist was shared with Finlay from "a male employee" of NYCB. This is key - if it had been a dancer who did it, the complaint would have said so. It indicates that while dancers may have seen the photos, they didn't take them. There are numerous male employees who could have taken surreptitious photos of female dancers dressing. The complainant must know who this person is. He should be named and shamed just as the dancers have been. (And fired, of course!) The NYCB is in an interesting position. In order to win the arbitration, they have to persuade the arbitrators that the actions of Catazaro and Ramasar created a hostile work environment, or at least an unproductive distraction, and that their treatment of their fellow dancers was so abusive and detrimental to the image of the company that they deserve to be fired. On the other hand, if they strenuously press that contention, should they fail to get the Waterbury case against them dismissed, they will have done Merson's job for him, to a degree. I personally don't believe Waterbury has standing to make a hostile workplace claim about her ex-boyfriend's workplace, but you never know how the court will rule. So many of the company's principal dancers and soloists have expressed support for Catazaro and Ramasar, the people they interact with the most, one wonders, who are the "community" members who can't tolerate their presence? Why should their opinion count for more than the artists people come to the theater to see?

Seems to be catching: https://www.cleveland.com/musicdance/index.ssf/2018/09/cleveland_orchestra_trombonist_1.html There is more information on the NY Philharmonic firings on the classical musicians websites. Compared to what the musicians are accused of, Finlay, Ramasar and Catazaro are choir boys, which may work to their benefit. I suspect that the ballet issue will continue to get more coverage because the principal actors are all young and sensationally attractive, and there are lots of photos available of them wearing very little. The musicians not so much.

Had Franken decided to mount a defense, he might have kept his seat. Ramasar and Catazaro are able to defend themselves through their union. The great thing about binding arbitration is that it limits the parties' financial exposure, another plus for a strong union. If the decision goes against Ramasar and Catazaro, they're history as far as their jobs go. However because of other factors, like the way the evidence was gathered and the gap between suspension and firing, they might still be able to sue somebody for damages.

Al Franken resigned. Although there is a mechanism to expel a Senator, it was not utilized, and likely would have failed if it had been. Even if the firings had been subject to a vote, who would get that vote? Every employee of NYCB, just the dancers, just those who had ten years seniority, just the principals? Would the women who had had consensual affairs with Ramasar have to recuse themselves? Messy. Luckily contracts are not subject to popularity.

Helene says: "There are no other dancers exposed by name in the complaint: the only other person exposed in the complaint is a former SAB student, Craig Hall. There are various references to "Principal Dancer," but no names given." There is a dancer mentioned in the complaint, not accused of any wrongdoing, who likely would prefer not to be directly involved in this dispute, especially given the context in which that person's name is used. There was no need to do this. The scuzzy donor retained his anonymity.

There are racial aspects to this story that play into the worst instincts of the American psyche. I've even seen articles where Ramasar's skin color is filtered to look darker than it actually is, like a dupe of Idris Elba. Chase Finlay, the protagonist in this tragedy, barely gets a mention in most stories.

Piqué Arabesque said: if Finlay gave Waterbury his password, it's very likely that the texts automatically popped up on his home screen as soon she logged in.  It was Finlay's computer. Wouldn't he know about that feature? I would question the claim that he allowed Ms. Waterbury access to his computer for that very reason. It's a shame that real people and their careers are being shredded (and I include Ms. Waterbury) because, from a legal and intellectual point of view, this is a fascinating case. There might even be a Constitutional question as to an employee's rights regarding the expectation of privacy in personal communications.

Speaking of so-called company culture, in the complaint, it is mentioned that other male dancers tried to persuade Finlay of the error of his ways, and that what he was doing was wrong. The names of these men are not disclosed. They studied and worked in the same environment as Finlay. What is it about NYCB that caused them to exhibit good morals but not Finlay? Nothing! This is not a ballet issue, it's a personal issue.

In the complaint it states that, "Plaintiff ALEXANDRA WATERBURY is a nineteen year-old ballet dancer and a former student at defendant NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC.", which is untrue. While she has studied for some time and appears quite accomplished, she does not earn a living dancing. What would be wrong with stating she's a twenty year old model and college student? Nothing, but it doesn't bolster the image of her as a work colleague of dancers at NYCB. Nowhere in the complaint is it claimed that Ms. Waterbury and Mr. Finlay began their relationship while she was a student at SAB, whatever her age at the time. No way would that little detail have been left out if it had happened. It's a personal relationship issue because it's between two individuals who do not work together. She has never been a member or a student of the NYCB. Where she went to school is irrelevant, as is the claim that they "met at the NYCB". They could have met anywhere, it doesn't make them work colleagues. There was no legal duty for Catazaro to intervene in Finlay's activities. If the complaint seems like "the tip of the iceberg" it's because it's expertly constructed to make you feel that way. You're right about Ramasar and Catazaro rebounding from this. They will, but they shouldn't have to. They will have a hard time matching the salary they were paid at NYCB, unless they snag a regular spot on a TV series. (It could happen.)

The biggest problem with the WaPo piece is that it's a load of codswallop. Ms. Kaufman is fighting the last war - Peter Martins is gone. Everyone involved in this lawsuit is a grownup, not children in need of guidance as to what is right or wrong, even if being around while Balanchine was running things automatically conferred moral superiority. (I don't think it does.) There are about a hundred dancers at NYCB and only a small number are alleged to be involved in the Finlay-Waterbury affair. People acted as individuals. There is no evidence of a "culture" that needs correcting. If I were a member of NYCB I would be insulted by all these good people talking about what's wrong with me and my company.

That complaint is not particularly lengthy, and mistakes, even typos, in a legal document can have devastating consequences. But mischaracterizing the age and occupation of the complainant is no typo. Neither is emphasizing a non-existent connection to the NYCB. The attorney is attempting to turn a personal relationship gone bad into a workplace issue, which is covered by state and Federal laws which could place NYCB in a disadvantageous position. It might take every ounce of strength in his body for Zachary Catazaro to get out of bed, considering that he has been ignominiously fired and his reputation in tatters because of someone else's dispute. It's unfair to just assume that more evidence against him will be emerging in the future. We don't know that. There is no evidence that anyone went to lengths to protect the men. Finlay took himself out and Ramasar and Catazaro have been punished severely, with no legal adjudication. There are at least two dancers named in the complaint - for no good reason - who are exposed to the public because of the complaint itself, not because of anything Finlay, Ramasar or Catazaro did.

The issue at hand is a lawsuit against Chase Finlay. It's been claimed that Chase Finlay showed up to rehearsal with alcohol on his breath on more than one occasion. My hypothetical spoke to that. Finlay partnered other principals. If one of those ballerinas complained about him I don't think they would be "ostracized". The women he danced with are as valuable to the company, in fact more valuable, than he is.

I was referring to a specific hypothetical situation. If you are about to rehearse or perform a lift with someone who is so inebriated that you doubt their ability to handle you safely, you must speak up. I am not talking about interactions where there is any ambiguity about what is going on. (In those cases I would keep a journal and inform at least two other people as to what was happening.) When air passengers spotted pilots drinking right before a flight, they didn't stop to consider if the pilots might lose their jobs. (They did.) That's an extreme example but I hope it helps to make my intent more clear. On the whole, Ms. Waterbury has been received very sympathetically in my opinion. There is no doubt that she was wronged, but that doesn't mean there isn't another aspect to this story. Suing for monetary damages may or may not be an act of revenge, but the company is obligated to defend itself, and Ramasar and Catazaro have a right to fight for their careers. Key aspects of the Waterbury complaint are ambiguous, inaccurate and one might say deceitful. One would hope that she and/or her parents read it before it was filed, but it's hard to believe there was no opportunity to make corrections. Noting that Ms. Waterbury has been seen in class, and that her contract with Danskin remains intact, does not mean she isn't suffering. It means that the complaint is not accurate when it describes her as unable to carry on with her life. I am not persuaded by the argument that the company's investigation found wrongdoing on the part of the male principals involved. (It's interesting that there are those who readily accept the company's conclusions in this matter, yet disbelieve the result of its investigation of Peter Martins.) We don't even know what Catazaro is accused of. It might not even be sexual in nature - maybe he wrote something like, "The Koch Brothers suck!". A few years ago a company member expressed something similar on social media, got spanked for it and prompted the company to come up with a formal social media policy. None of the accused dancers put objectionable photos of women on their personal social media accounts. Somebody is compelled to go after Ms. Waterbury on a personal level because she's making a personal complaint. Her lawyer or her parents should have warned her that not all elements in her story are going to go unchallenged, especially by the dancers who have been dragged into this mess through no fault of their own. She chose to go on Good Morning America instead of remaining relatively anonymous. She sued only a few days after the first meeting with NYCB. Perhaps more effort should have been put into reaching a settlement. Whether you continue to support the company is your decision of course. But it's hardly like the Bolshoi, where dancers fling acid in the eyes of their enemies.