On Pointe

A ballet company is not a typical workplace, but it is a workplace nevertheless. Reporting that a co-worker appears to be impaired in an office setting is quite different from a situation where that co-worker handles your body as part of the job. I share the concerns of people who don't want to be seen as "snitches", but I can't be more concerned about their well-being than they are. If they want to risk being bruised and broken that's on them.

A convent is a community; a ballet company is a professional work place. If my physical well-being was being compromised because another cast member was too drunk to do his or her job (it has happened), I would report that person to the stage manager and not give a damn about what other people thought about it. I'd rather be ostracized than end up with a broken nose.

The comedian Louis CK barred the exit door and forced female comedians to watch him masturbate. Charlie Rose used to parade naked around his assistants. Les Moonves allegedly forced a producer to perform oral sex and when she refused a second time, he called her the "c" word and threw her against a wall. That is "rampant sexual misconduct". Looking at pictures of naked girls is not.

AGMA does not automatically insert itself in disputes. Catazaro and Ramasar could have accepted their suspensions, but being fired, with great fanfare, was too much. They filed a complaint with their union, which is their right, and NYCB must come to the table, which is their responsibility. I wouldn't characterize expressing trepidation at being partnered by an impaired person or an accused domestic abuser as "whistleblowing". If a dancer is afraid of being dropped by a drunk, what other people think about it is not a likely consideration. I don't get why fear of being ostracized is a concern. This isn't high school.

When attacked, people tend to fight back. Validating the feelings of the attacker is not their foremost concern. Ms. Waterbury's complaint arbitrarily disclosed the names of at least two people who were not principals in this case, likely causing them great embarrassment and possible damage to their careers. It's still not clear why Zachary Catazaro was fired, as he maintains he had nothing to do with the Finlay-Waterbury material, and that his off-duty activities were lawful. But that hasn't stopped many from condemning him, evidence unknown. Catazaro has feelings, too.

We don't know that company is exactly willing to go head to head with AGMA. They probably don't have a choice - there's usually a binding arbitration agreement for dispute resolution in company contracts. One thing, as a number of NYCB personnel have posted statements of support for Ramasar and Catazaro, NYCB leadership can't say that they're being let go because company members think it best. Some company members want them gone, not all. Either way, their employment contract should not be subject to what is in effect a popularity contest. It's curious that some company employees are so distracted by the presence of Ramasar and Catazaro that they want them gone, but apparently no one went to AGMA about the dangers of being partnered by an alcohol abuser, or being obliged to work with an alleged rapist and domestic violence abuser - the one who, according to Waterbury's complaint, everybody knew about and talked about. A thought that came to me - while it may not make a difference in the outcome of this situation, Ms. Waterbury's story of how she discovered that offensive material was being passed around seems suspect. Why would she need Chase Finlay's computer to "check her email"? Hard to believe she wouldn't have a smart phone or tablet of her own on her person. Models often get last minute calls for go-sees and auditions, and being reachable is a basic requirement of the job. Model or not, a twenty year old who didn't have her own device is a rarity. (It would be rare for a twelve year old in NYC.) Perhaps she had another reason to search through Finlay's emails and discovered by accident that he was sending out nude photos of her.

Debra Winger had to do a nude love scene with Richard Gere and they despised each other. If I had a daughter - I don't - my level of comfort would have no bearing on her interactions with a partner who has never been accused of wrong doing in his professional capacity as a dancer.

My point and yours don't meet. But we're not supposed to discuss the discussion so I'll leave it at that.

Being liked or disliked, respected or admired by the other dancers should have nothing to do with it. They have no capacity to hire or fire. Ramasar and Catazaro did not sign contracts with the other dancers, they signed them with NYCB Inc. The company undercut their own position by trying to include the other dancers in their actions. Performers have a long storied tradition of working well with people they do not like, or whose views are opposite their own. For example Betty White and Bea Arthur on The Golden Girls, whose hatred of each other was legendary. Or closer to home for NYCB, Zero Mostel creating the role of Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof, conceived, choreographed and directed by Jerome Robbins, who outed him to HUAC and destroyed his career during the McCarthy era.

As a long time performer, union operative and sometime producer, I can assure you that strong performers' unions benefit everyone. I only hope that AGMA, not known for being especially tough, will handle this situation like SAG-AFTRA or Actors Equity would. "So they didn't distribute inappropriate videos and/or photos of their co-workers? Ramasar didn't actively solicit them and make demeaning comments about them? They participated at knifepoint?" I don't know what they did. They might have done all that is claimed and more. "Optics" means it looks bad to have the focus of this story shifted to a guy with a name that ends with a vowel and someone iwith dark brown skin in the conspicuously white world of ballet. Quote

I use the term "ethnic" the way urban sociologists use it. It has nothing to do with where their parents were born. Italian-Americans are considered "white ethnics". Ramasar is very dark, I believe half-Puerto Rican and half Trinidadian.

Whether it was "some" or "all", firing an employee, who is otherwise doing his job and fulfilling the terms of his contract, because other employees don't like him is not a defensible position. This isn't Survivor, where the majority gets to vote someone off the island. I don't know much about Catazaro, but from the snippets seen in Ballet 422, Ramasar is a gentle and considerate partner, despite any kinks he may have in his personal life. If for reasons of saving face, and because of the Waterbury challenge ahead, NYCB won't reinstate Catazaro and Ramasar, then the company would be wise to compensate them for the loss of their careers and reputations. They might go quietly if after legal expenses they have at least $1,000,000. (That may seem like a lot but it's far less than NYCB may have to spend to defend their actions.) This matter needs to go away fast. The optics are really bad for the company - two ethnic dancers being punished because of the shenanigans of a rich white boy from Connecticut.

The Broadway World article states, "Earlier this summer, following an internal investigation, NYCB determined that Catazaro, Ramasar, and former Principal Dancer Chase Finlay had engaged in inappropriate communications, that while personal, off-hours and off-site, had violated the norms of conduct that NYCB expects from its employees and were unacceptable.". If this is an accurate representation of NYCB's public statements, they are conceding that they have intruded in the lives of their employees to a degree that might be actionable. They may soon have another lawsuit on their hands.

Zachary Catazaro seems to be signaling that he intends to fight this termination. AGMA would not have rendered an opinion unless he consulted them, and apparently they agree with his stance. According to Ms. Waterbury's complaint, while Catazaro is named, his alleged involvement is vague. He raises an interesting point - does an employee have an expectation of privacy regarding his personal communications carried out on his own time?

He'll be all right. As the saying goes, you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes. I'm sure there are several up-and-coming male dancers who don't feel the least bit depressed at the news. The NYCB is trying to establish that they took decisive action immediately after they learned of the emails, before the suit was filed, which would bolster their contention that they do not encourage or condone sexist behavior.

It would be very unwise for members of the company to say anything about this case, unless their idea of a fun day is sitting for a deposition. Merson would love nothing more than to turn this personal dispute between two people into an interrogation of the entire NYCB. The overwhelming majority of the company had no involvement in this scandal, although due to her previous relationship with Finlay, which was publicized, Lauren Lovette might be called upon to testify. The fans who are demanding high-minded statements from the dancers are doing them a disservice.

I think we're talking about this case because we're ballet fans and those involved are ballet dancers. Ms. Waterbury appears to have a legitimate case against Chase Finlay. There is nothing ballet schools can teach that could have prevented him from taking photos of her. Everything that happened between them could have happened if she were an accountant. There are issues in ballet that should be discussed, and the profession is ripe for reform in a number of areas. But, no doubt at the behest of her very able counsel, Ms. Waterbury is suing NYCB Inc. because they have deeper pockets than the individual dancers who are involved.

The company, any company's, response to an employee with a substance abuse problem and or domestic violence situation is confidential business. Disclosing the details could put the corporation in jeopardy. A manager on my job stole thousands of dollars from a number of clients. The company restored the funds, "persuaded" the manager to resign and gave her a generic recommendation letter, because the negative publicity of charging her would have been devastating. NYCB might have warned the dancer of negative consequences to his career if he continued his bad behavior. But they would be very unwise to disclose any disciplinary action, whether it "sends a message" or not.

Of course Ms. Waterbury wants money. She's asking for actual and punitive damages. Merson wants money too. If she prevails, he will get about 40% of whatever she is awarded. I don't fault either one of them for wanting money, but I'm not buying the notion that her real aim is to expose misogynist attitudes in the ballet world. There are multiple ways she could have done that without suing. She could have filed criminal charges first, but she has likely been advised that the case against NYCB is unlikely to be upheld. She might even lose a case against Finlay and Ramasar, or the DA might decline to press charges, and then where would she be? She's doing the smart thing by suing civilly. I just don't believe she has a case against the company. I spent many years as part of the governing council of a performer's union, where one of my tasks was adjudicating disputes between performers and producers as well as performer against performer. I learned that there are truly three sides to every story, and it's unwise to take any claim at face value without a thorough investigation. I may sound a bit harsh, but it's nothing compared to what NYCB's lawyers will have to say if this case goes to trial.

According to his website, Jordan Merson is one if the most prominent personal injury attorneys in the country, with hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements for his clients. He's no "small practitioner". NYCB will have to bring in the big guns to go up against him. Which is neither here nor there. Either the complaint against NYCB has merit or it doesn't.

Whether it's "sour grapes" or not, Ms. Waterbury certainly is justified in being furious with Chase Finlay. But to me, one of the most aggravating aspects of this case is the infantilization of adult members of the NYCB, as if the company could or should supervise them in even the most intimate aspects of their lives. Finlay, Ramasar and others are responsible for their own actions, as is Ms. Waterbury. Young people need to learn that there are sexual predators and creeps everywhere, from CBS to the White House, from elementary schools to the Catholic Church. Even with safeguards in place, your workplace can't protect you from every eventuality. (In Ms. Waterbury's case it was somebody else's workplace, which is what makes her complaint against NYCB such a stretch.) Lauren Lovette (and others) may feel that Ms. Waterbury is trying to destroy the company they work so hard for and love because she didn't get in it, and she has lousy taste in boyfriends. (Maybe not, but that's how it looks to me.)

The entire theory of Ms. Waterbury's case rests on the premise that NYCB as a corporation is responsible for her exploitation. Right off the bat, Merson obfuscates by describing her in the complaint as a former "student of the NYCB, Inc." when she was actually a former student of SAB. He describes her as "a nineteen year old ballet dancer" when she is actually a twenty year old college student and model who does not and apparently never has made a living as a dancer. It's claimed that Waterbury and Finlay "met at NYCB, Inc.", implying that they were work colleagues. Evidently these inaccuracies worked, as many media outlets initially reported that "a teen-age ballerina at the NYCB is suing the company", and only some of them bothered to run a correction. Merson scored big in the public relations game. Journalistic standards are not what they once were. Even the outlets that ran corrections did not slam Merson for his misstatements. (In all fairness, that's not what they are required to do.) Hall may not have exclusive rights to his name, but he does have exclusive rights to his reputation. It would have required little effort on Merson's part to describe the other Craig Hall as "a former student, NOT the current ballet master of the same name." Even Wikipedia practices this "disambiguation". When careers are on the line, it behooves an attorney to be more careful - unless the aim is to deliberately reinforce the notion that officials of the NYCB were involved in Ms. Waterbury's exploitation.

Technically speaking, isn't Craig Hall, ex-soloist and member of the interim leadership team, also a "former student" of SAB? It's really not acceptable for Merson to use his name so carelessly, especially since other alleged culprits are not named at all.

While a settlement is probably in Chase Finlay's best interests, it's hard to see what NYCB would gain from it. They have already borne the brunt of bad publicity. Ms. Waterbury's case against them could be dismissed by the judge. Should the case go to trial, the verdict is just as likely to come down in their favor as in hers. If she prevails, she might receive only a token amount in damages. Lawsuits can take years to make their way through the courts. I once heard a lawyer say, "You can have a lawsuit or you can have a life." Hopefully Ms. Waterbury can move forward from this and enjoy her college years.

Many corporations have instituted mandatory seminars regarding sexual harassment, where it's made crystal clear what behaviors are not tolerated from employees. On my job, in addition, we are required to complete ethics training every year. It would be a good idea for ballet companies to do something similar, especially because so many of their employees are very young people working their first job.