On Pointe

1 hour ago, Quiggin said:

The Finlay affair became a big story in the press because it has elements in common with the Peter Martins domestic violence incident of which Toni Bentley says,

This most recent incident too had a particularly pointed symbolism in that one of the dancers – a danceur noble like Martins – has referred to a female dancer associated with the company worse than an animal: a slut. That's turning the ethos of NYCB – whatever you might think of it – upside down. It's not PR, it's the company narrative. And the reversal makes it a natural story for journalists and maybe even for novelists.

Other than Sergui Celibidache refusing to seat a woman trombonist at the Munich Philharmonic in the 90s, there hasn't been an equivalent in the classical music world to Martins firing Farrell and refusing the talents of Villella, Verdy, Clifford and many other "prime movers" of Balanchine technique. As a result it was said in the press for a while that you had to go to Miami to see Balanchine done with proper character and verve. (That might be different now and Miami's example perhaps helped.)

 

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.

12 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

Which raises the question of whether the new AD should come from outside NYCB entirely. In other words, not Woetzel, not Whelan, not Lopez. 

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.)

4 minutes ago, sappho said:

Definitely agree with this. I was referring mainly to his use of "unfortunate mistake" -- and in the passive voice, as you rightly note -- to characterize what happened. I also don't think NYCB's cultural contributions are relevant to the case at hand.

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?

26 minutes ago, sappho said:

What a vile comment on Mr. Clifford's part.

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.)

1 hour ago, FPF said:

They were fired for cause. That is a direct message that they are no longer valued--that the negatives outweigh the positives.

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.

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:

1. The employee knew of the company’s policy
2. The company’s policy was reasonable
3. The company investigated to determine that the employee violated the policy
4. The investigation was fair and objective
5. Substantial evidence existed of the employee’s violation of the policy
6. The company’s policy was consistently applied
7. 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."

37 minutes ago, laurel said:

"I learned that discipline is not negotiable, grace is a consequence of humility, devotion to something greater than oneself is salvation and impossible beauty exists."

When Mr. Kirstein was asked what ballet was about, he explained: “Ballet is about how to behave.”

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.

15 minutes ago, Helene said:

From when it was considered fine to describe voyeurism before the age of cell phones: in Christopher d'Amboise's memoir, he described how when the company was on tour somewhere -- maybe Copenhagen -- there was a window from the men's locker room from which they could see into the women's locker room, and he described how all of the men, straight and gay -- this seemed to surprise him -- watched a "well-endowed" female dancer change, until she caught them and, furiously, blocked their view.  (I can't remember how.)

So, yes, agency was the key here as well.

Since the Company did not disclose details, and no dancers have come forth to volunteer what their feedback to the Company was or to disclose that their photos were shared and how they feel about it, it's not certainly anything we can answer here.

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.

45 minutes ago, Drew said:

I have cut and pasted below what they wrote (which you may have seen): the issue is "further assessment"  which surely is the company's prerogative; I don't assume it just means PR assessment, but assessment of what is happening in the workplace. Here is the quote:

"In a previous communication from New York City Ballet, you learned that the Company recently undertook an internal investigation that determined that Zachary Catazaro, Chase Finlay, and Amar Ramasar had violated the norms of conduct that NYCB expects of its employees. At that time New York City Ballet took the initial action of suspending Catazaro and Ramasar, and had made the decision to terminate Finlay, prior to receiving notice of his resignation.

"After further assessment of their conduct and its impact on the NYCB community, the decision has been made to terminate Catazaro and Ramasar. A workplace where our dancers and staff feel respected and valued is our highest obligation, and we will not allow the private actions of a few to undermine the hard work and strength of character that has consistently been demonstrated by the other members of our community, or the excellence for which the Company stands."

I can't say I'm surprised dancers (notably a couple of principal dancers) are expressing sympathy for their friends.  But I would like to believe it's not simply a matter of knee-jerk loyalty. Loyalty is a lovely quality as is friendship, but that kind of show of loyalty often happens in other fields (eg academica) around similar kinds of issues and I think that, on the whole, it has been detrimental to movement on issues of sexual exploitation in universities and in the workplace. As Stephen Colbert said about Les Moonves who hired him and was a big supporter of his show--even if it's your guy, you shouldn't just automatically be on his side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKa5u6mX05o  

Indeed if this WERE a popularity contest within the company, one can't help but suppose that Waterbury's interests would stand no chance, because she is presumably not known to most of the dancers. Which is yet another reason this shouldn't be a popularity contest. (For that matter a new corps de ballet member wouldn't have the clout of a long time principal etc. etc.)

If other dancers'/employees' photos have been distributed as alleged, then this all must be unbelievably painful for them and I hope and trust the company's leaders and, when appropriate, other dancers and the union also have concern for their interests. (There are a number of issues raised by the complaint that extend beyond Waterbury that I hope have been or are being investigated by the company seriously.)

I notice a lot of people above read Ramasar's second statement more warily/critically than I did...I was just relieved there was some nod to regret and sympathy for Waterbury.

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?

6 hours ago, aurora said:

It seems this is the time of year for clearing house of bad actors over at Lincoln Center:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/arts/music/new-york-philharmonic-liang-wang-matthew-muckey.html

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.

12 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

After just about every Senator who is also a woman voted him off the island. I think it's safe to say he resigned under duress. I don't know if the requisite number of Senators would have voted for expulsion after an ethics probe, but he didn't have enough support within his own caucus to make it that far.

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.

11 minutes ago, aurora said:

Since the company members at large didn't know about the alleged behavior until recently, I'm not sure how this is relevant. That is like saying but no one in the Senate ever objected to Al Franken being in the senate before, so why should they once they knew the allegations about him

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.

28 minutes ago, Rick said:

 

 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.

34 minutes ago, Pique Arabesque said:

As others have said, Waterbury dances with Ballet Next, which would make her a ballet dancer. Her reported age could also be the age that she was when her relationship with Finlay began. And though SAB is not NYCB, the school-company relationship is stronger than any other in the US (as we all know, 99.9% of NYCB dancers come from SAB).

This would be a personal relationship issue if Finlay had surreptitiously recorded Waterbury and kept the images/videos for himself. It became a company issue when he shared the images with two colleagues and invited them to share surreptitiously recorded images of NYCB women (I am not sure how this part of the claim is confusing). The complaint says that Catazaro was complicit in the photo sharing, though it doesn't go beyond that. Even if he didn't send a nude image himself (and I'm not sure about this), one could argue that he failed to intervene as a bystander. I say that more evidence will likely emerge because the complaint really seems like the tip of the iceberg.

There is quite a bit of support for the men online (I'll keep it at that). It seems as though the union will intervene on behalf of Ramasar and Catazaro. All three men are handsome and accomplished and will rebound eventually (mostly because society is still not serious about holding abusers accountable). Marv Albert (the basketball commentator) pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual assault charges in the late 90s. He was fired from NBC, but rebounded and currently does commentary for TNT. 

This has been a difficult year for NYCB. I don't always agree with Kaufman, but I don't see the issue with reaffirming a commitment to a respectful company culture. Martins might be gone, but the company is clearly dealing with his legacy.

If Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar were concerned about embarrassment, they shouldn't have traded nude images of colleagues. Even if Waterbury is not a household name in the ballet community, there are many people who can relate to her stories of workplace sexual misconduct.

38 minutes ago, Pique Arabesque said:

As others have said, Waterbury dances with Ballet Next, which would make her a ballet dancer. Her reported age could also be the age that she was when her relationship with Finlay began. And though SAB is not NYCB, the school-company relationship is stronger than any other in the US (as we all know, 99.9% of NYCB dancers come from SAB).

This would be a personal relationship issue if Finlay had surreptitiously recorded Waterbury and kept the images/videos for himself. It became a company issue when he shared the images with two colleagues and invited them to share surreptitiously recorded images of NYCB women (I am not sure how this part of the claim is confusing). The complaint says that Catazaro was complicit in the photo sharing, though it doesn't go beyond that. Even if he didn't send a nude image himself (and I'm not sure about this), one could argue that he failed to intervene as a bystander. I say that more evidence will likely emerge because the complaint really seems like the tip of the iceberg.

There is quite a bit of support for the men online (I'll keep it at that). It seems as though the union will intervene on behalf of Ramasar and Catazaro. All three men are handsome and accomplished and will rebound eventually (mostly because society is still not serious about holding abusers accountable). Marv Albert (the basketball commentator) pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual assault charges in the late 90s. He was fired from NBC, but rebounded and currently does commentary for TNT. 

This has been a difficult year for NYCB. I don't always agree with Kaufman, but I don't see the issue with reaffirming a commitment to a respectful company culture. Martins might be gone, but the company is clearly dealing with his legacy.

If Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar were concerned about embarrassment, they shouldn't have traded nude images of colleagues. Even if Waterbury is not a household name in the ballet community, there are many people who can relate to her stories of workplace sexual misconduct.

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.)

1 hour ago, vipa said:

One problem with Sarah Kaufman's article is that she takes all allegations as truths. The allegations against Martins were investigated. The result of the investigation would not lead me to conclude that anyone connect to Martins should be gone. The allegations made by Waterbury are still allegations, and confusing ones at that. Those allegations have been discussed and are being discussed fully on another forum. 

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.

2 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

Waterbury's complaint clearly states that the photos were taken and distributed without her consent. Nude images of sex workers, for example, are taken with their consent. They are also paid for their photos and understand that the photos will be disseminated widely. This was not the case for Waterbury and the NYCB women.

1. I imagine that there will be typos in a document of that length. 

2. It could take every ounce of strength in her body for Waterbury to get out of bed in the morning. I am thinking of the people who said that Peter Frame seemed happy in the days before his suicide.

3. I seriously doubt that NYCB would part with 3 of their leading men - particularly Ramasar - if they did not find any wrongdoing. They circled the wagons around Martins earlier this year. There will likely be more information about Catazaro emerging in the subsequent months, but mild criticism of a donor/sponsor (to use your example) is probably not a fireable offense. Also, most social media platforms have a policy against pornography, which is why the images were never shared on social media (Instagram - where the dancers seem to be most active - is particularly tough on this).

4. Waterbury first discovered the images in May, and went public in September. She and her team likely spent the entire summer trying to build the strongest case possible. They are all acutely aware that any sexual misconduct claims will be under placed under a microscope from people who want to protect the men and institution involved. Also, Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar "dragged" dancers into this situation, not Waterbury. She should be applauded for her unwillingness to tolerate an abusive environment. (I am also thinking about Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, who very reluctantly and bravely came forward today. Coming forward publically can be liberating to victims).

5. I am glad that NYCB leadership has intervened before this devolves into an "acid-flinging" situation.

Also, as for her relationship to NYCB, broadcast media tends to paint in broad strokes. It is easier for the general public to see her as a *ballerina* (more clickbait-y) than a former SAB student, which probably doesn't mean much to people unfamiliar with classical ballet. I don't think that Waterbury or her team have tried to mischaracterize their relationship with NYCB.

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.

2 hours ago, aurora said:

This is a hypothetical you yourself brought up and which has literally no bearing on the issue at hand.

 

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.

1 hour ago, Drew said:

No-one wants to risk being bruised and broken at any workplace. Speaking generally, one issue I notice is that sometimes people find themselves in situations where they also doubt--and indeed are implicitly encouraged to doubt--their own perceptions. "Everyone says x is such a great person...I must be over-reacting...;" "Well, so-and-so didn't actually physically hurt me, I just felt weird-- I guess I shouldn't say anything" and "Perhaps it was just the one time, I don't want x to lose his/her job" etc.  "So-and-so reported something two years ago and ended up losing HER (or HIS) job after blowing the whistle...I don't want that to happen to me..." and, very common, "It must have been my fault--I sent the wrong message when I stopped to chat...asked for advice..." etc. etc.

I wish people spoke up more too. But a blanket condemnation for people who don't speak up at their workplace about behaviors that are genuinely inappropriate or even illegal  seems puzzling to me. Especially when you add gaps of age and experience, complex legal scenarios--since without certain kinds of evidence some statements can be considered libelous etc. 

To return to this case: Waterbury doesn't work at NYCB--though I don't think her history as an SAB student is morally insignificant in this story and I suppose there is a chance that it may turn out not be legally insignificant either--but even the way her complaint has been received gives one an idea of how hard it is to come forward in similar situations including when employers are involved: "Oh she isn't really suffering--I saw her in class last week;" (which implies and more than implies that she's a liar)  "Oh what was she doing on Finlay's computer anyway?"  (which implies and more than implies she is a suspicious person) "Obviously, she is out for money...revenge..."(which implies she is an opportunist) to say nothing of the insults she reports receiving in one of her interviews...And all this despite the fact that the company's own investigation found wrongdoing on the part of Finlay, Ramasar, and Catazaro.

The fact that we may see more of this kind of thing as the legal disputes go forward actually has me in a bit of a cold sweat (not that that is the main problem with it!!) since--for example--if the company were to go after Waterbury in a personal way (as opposed simply to disputing their legal responsibility for what happened to her), then I would likely feel compelled to stop travellng to see NYCB perform for quite a while.  (This may seem comical--or hypocritical--from someone planning to travel to see the Bolshoi this summer--but New York City Ballet is New York City Ballet, a "home" company for me. I do feel differently about it and a different kind of responsibility as someone who has donated money to the company etc.)

Edited to add: Maybe someone is reading this and thinking "oh grow up...all major ballet companies have horrible stuff going down all the time..." But if that were true, so much the more reason for their to be a reckoning and an attempt to think about what  the companies and their schools might do differently. There are always bad people (something On Pointe has said several times), but not all workplaces are equally bad.

 

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.