On Pointe

A bit draconian perhaps - we have to burn down the village to save it? It seems that there were some dancers who were aware of the photos but did not request to see them and did not approve of Finlay's actions. Dancers are not mandated reporters. Why should they lose their jobs? Even when employees are fired for cause, prudent managers do not advertise why they were fired. To do so could leave them vulnerable to being sued themselves.

I'm curious as to what posters here would consider appropriate punishment? Bear in mind that while Finlay is alleged to have committed a crime, Waterbury has not sought criminal charges and he hasn't been convicted of anything. His career at NYCB is over. What more should or could the company do to him? (Ramasar and Catazaro could still lose their jobs. It's unclear from the complaint what Catazaro is accused of.) It's management's responsibility to try to conserve assets. We don't know what kind of financial settlement Merson proposed, but it was probably big because that's what he does. If NYCB had paid up, very few people would have known what happened.

The company reacted when they found out about the allegations. They didn't just brush them off. (Unless one believes that management knew or should have known that Finlay was going to covertly record AW and distribute the photos, which seems a bit of a legal strecth.)

I enjoyed reading John Clifford's stories of the Balanchine days. I was a a ballet student in New York during that time and shared living quarters with SAB students and company apprentices. (No dorm in those days.) They always had plenty of juicy gossip. One thing is clear - even in the "glory days" of NYCB, when Balanchine and Kirstein ran the shop, there was plenty of scandal and questionable activity going on. As for the Finlay-Waterbury debacle, this too will pass, and the company will endure. It would be a good idea for the company to bar underage dancers from attending company events where alcohol is served, and to institute a strict non-fraternIzation policy between company members who are legal adults and underage members and students at SAB. That wouldn't have changed anything for Ms. Waterbury but it would still be good policy. Certain elements in the complaint serve to undermine Ms. Waterbury's case. A couple of times it is claimed that Finlay wanted to engage in illicit sexual activities and/or to violate AW's privacy and then tell her about it afterward, but other male dancers found it morally reprehensible and talked him out of it. This indicates that Finlay was acting as an individual, and that not all male company members were persuaded by some explicit company policy that for them, anything goes. Indeed it appears that no such policy was in place, but Ms. Waterbury's attorney made NYCB a party to this law suit based on its supposed existence. Timing also works against the complaint. Ramasar and Catazaro were suspended, and Finlay resigned well before the suit was filed. The company was active, not reactive. If it was NYCB policy that anything goes, "as long as it happens in New York", the dancers would not have been disciplined. It's hard to see how NYCB as a corporate entity owes Ms. Waterbury damages, but she definitely has a case against Finlay. While this story is being widely-reported, based on comments or lack of them, it isn't gaining much traction with the general public. Sad to say, these days even middle-schoolers have been discovered sending nude photos back and forth. Ballet fans may be the only people shocked by this.

Scharf misspoke. Neither he nor NYCB can unilaterally declare that anything in the Waterbury complaint actually happened as claimed. "Craig Hall" is referenced in the complaint as a ballet student. One of the company dancers recently married "Craig Hall", and of course "Craig Hall" is a beloved ex-soloist and current member of the interim leadership team. Some of those presumed guilty are not even named in the complaint. It will take a lengthy adjudication to determine exactly who did what to whom.

I have read in multiple sources that actually there was no confrontation. Finlay resigned before there was any interview. Legally one can not consider his resignation an admission of guilt. Regarding AGMA: like other performing arts unions, AGMA negotiates a collective bargaining agreement with NYCB on behalf of its members in order to set minimum salaries and working conditions. Individual dancers are free to negotiate for higher compensation and more favorable work requirements, although realistically only highly-valued principals are likely to be successful. (Some) men behave badly toward women in all strata of society. It's not unique to the culture of NYCB. The latest shocking allegations against Les Moonves of CBS far outstrip anything City Ballet personnel have ever been accused of. It's unrealistic to expect any workplace to be responsible for the actions of employees that they undertake on their own time, in the privacy of their own homes. But implicit in every collective bargaining agreement is the expectation that all parties will obey the law.

When some random rock act invites groupies to a party and trashes a hotel room, you hear about it in the media. Waterbury's complaint references Finlay and others supposedly being fined $150,000 for something similar, but I can't find any reference to it. One would think that given the rarity of a prestige organization's members being involved that there would be a readily accessible news item somewhere. Does anyone know the particulars? I still don't believe a few dancers could inflict that much damage, no matter how wasted they might have been.

How can the company be held responsible because some dancers used their servers to send objectionable material? Is there some program or algorithm that monitors every electronic message?

I am NOT blaming women for the actions of men! Ashley Bouder is considered a leader. She had no responsibility to stop the actions of the company men. But she indicates (maybe I'm misreading it) that their bad behavior was known in the company long before it became public. As a principal dancer, she had the standing and power to speak out without fear of repercussion. It means little to take a high-minded stand now and to seemingly blame the team which is holding down the fort now. My question was not clear evidently. If Chase Findlay had re-posted Ms. Bouder's semi-nude photo, with her knowledge and consent, would that be considered objectionable?

I'm not sure what to make of Ashley Bouder's statement. She seems supportive of her company, and the vast majority of the dancers who had nothing to do with this debacle. Then she ends with the "allowed to fester" line. This indicates (to me anyway) that the bad behavior of some male dancers was common knowledge to some degree, and nothing was done about it. Did she know about it, and if she did, why didn't she speak out earlier? (I note that she still has a photo up on her Instagram of her dancing with Chase Finlay.) The shot of her standing on a beach with her bare behind exposed also sends a mixed message. Is it female empowerment or self-objectification? If Finlay had posted this photo of her wouldn't he be condemned for it?

Ms. Waterbury's friends and family didn't exactly have a responsibility to protect her. It would have been kind to perhaps advise her that he might be more than a young girl can handle. But she was a legal adult, and on paper, Finlay looks awfully desirable - good looking WASPY stage star from an old money Connecticut family. She might have been dazzled by attention from him. Are there other instances of Finlay abusing a woman's trust?

Realistically, how could an employer warn the girlfriend of one of their employees that he might be trouble? They might not even know he has a girlfriend. What could they say that wouldn't be actionable? "Look out for him because he doesn't respect women and he might distribute nude photos of you."

Of course Finlay is liable for harm he caused to Ms. Waterbury! That is not in dispute, at least not to me. The question is whether or not the NYCB bears legal responsibility for his actions.

I am not insinuating that Ms. Waterbury is responsible for Chase Finlay's actions. I am saying that young women have to be careful, because many men can not be trusted. That a relationship between a girl barely out of her teens and a man who's nearly thirty is going to exhibit some imbalance. That a guy who shows up to work with alcohol on his breath is not an ideal companion for a girl too young to legally drink. That wanting to take photos of one's young girlfriend engaged in a sex act is kink enough to give one pause, even without the photos being distributed. There were red flags all around this couple. Ms. Waterbury was in over her head, and apparently no friend or parent warned her that dating Finlay might not be a good idea. Or if they did, she didn't heed them.

"Alex's relationship with the company has no bearing on her standing to bring forth a case against City Ballet." In the complaint, Ms. Waterbury claims to have been a "former student at New York City Ballet, Inc." As this was not true, it's unclear why this detail was included. Perhaps to suggest a relationship with the company that did not exist? "Paragraph 65 of the complaint alleges that "The sharing of naked and explicit images of female ballet dancers, including Ms. Waterbury, amongst male ballet dancers occurred *exclusively* at NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC" (emphasis added)." There is no way that the complainant could know that. There are hundreds of ballet companies in the world. At any rate, it's irrelevant. "Being aware or not aware of explicit photographs being taken of you is a separate issue from having those images distributed without your consent. Even if someone willingly gives nude pictures of themselves to someone else (which was not the case here), it is still a violation of administrative code 10-177 to distribute those images without permission." All true. Best not to put oneself in a vulnerable position in the first place. Ms. Waterbury is likely aware of the many cases of nude photos taken without permission that have ended up on the internet. If your boyfriend is "into" taking such photos, and continually bugs you to pose, it's a pretty good clue that he's not the one for you. "Moreover, just because she is back on campus and back in classes does not mean she is not suffering the effects of these men's actions. Physically being in class does not mean you are able to concentrate on what is happening. I can attest to this personally because I have no idea what happened in my classes after I read about what happened to her. Being able to go to class also doesn't mean that you don't leave those classes crying." It's not my wish to cause you or her untoward distress. I simply disagree with the theory of her case. Should the case go to trial, there will likely be others who share my viewpoint.

If Waterbury could not be expected to know of Finlay's activities, why should anyone in leadership at NYCB be expected to not only know about them but prevent them? There is no doubt that she was harmed by his actions, but she's asking for compensation from a third party on the basis that they condoned, encouraged and approved of his actions, and I don't think that can be proved. She's attempting to make a hostile workplace claim about a place where she doesn't work. She should sue Finlay but drop NYCB as a defendant.

At some point, adults have to take responsibility for their actions. Ms. Waterbury had fair warning that the man she was dating was a substance abuser with a kink. She had the opportunity to cut off contact with him but chose not to. Finlay photographing her against her will is not her fault. But it isn't the fault of the NYCB either. Why should the company have to pay her off? Including NYCB in her complaint smacks of opportunism.

I finally read the entire complaint (thank you, Drew!), and I think Ms. Waterbury and her lawyer have their work cut out for them if they hope to persuade a jury that NYCB is financially responsible for her personal distress. Ms. Waterbury was not a "student of the NYCB", she was a student of SAB, a separate entity, but she does not include SAB in her complaint. At any rate, while she is very young (and in my personal opinion too young and naive to be involved in a full-blown affair), she was a legal adult when her sexual relationship with Finlay began. She was fully aware that Finlay wanted to photograph her nude and while engaged in sexual acts, as the complaint mentions that she strenuously objected to the idea, but she did not break off the relationship. There is no evidence that NYCB condoned or encouraged this kind of behavior, by statement or action on the part of the company, or that company officers knew about it. Ms. Waterbury claims to be so distressed by the company's negligent supervision that she is unable to participate in her usual activities and requires medical care, possibly including hospitalization. But apparently she is still a student at Columbia, is still on the roster at Wilhelmina Models, and she is still able to dance - there is a local news story on this matter on YouTube which shows her dancing in the studio. While her distress and embarrassment are no doubt real, the public was unaware of her exploitation until she herself came forward. The company didn't expose her. The suit contains claims of bad behavior that was generally known and spoken of by company members and even outside of the company, and posits that there was no disciplining of bad actors by the NYCB, that Ms. Waterbury was aware of. But it also mentions a fine of $150,000 imposed on Finlay and others. That's a hell of a lot of money. If the company imposed the fine, Waterbury can't claim that NYCB encouraged or condoned "fratboy" behavior. She also can't show that the company was aware of exploitation of her and other female dancers, and condoned and approved of it. She herself only found out about it by searching through Finlay's emails, and she was in closer proximity to Finlay than any officer of NYCB. Toward the end of her complaint, Waterbury and Merson claim that "By reason of the foregoing, plaintiff ALEXANDRA WATERBURY is entitled to compensatory damages from defendants and/or their agents, servants, employees, donors, principals and/or others in such sums as a jury would find fair, just, and adequate, and plaintiff ALEXANDRA WATERBURY is further entitled to punitive and exemplary damages from defendants and/or their agents, servants, employees, donors, principals and/or others in such sums as a jury would find fair, just, and appropriate to deter said defendant and others from future similar conduct.". Is she really seeking to hold ALL the dancers and employees of NYCB financially liable for the actions of her scuzzy ex-boyfriend? She does seem to have a case against Finlay, but she may have put that in jeopardy by the means she used to uncover the evidence. By her own words, Finlay gave her the password to his computer so that she could check her emails. He did not give her permission to go rummaging through his. I'm not defending Finlay, Ramasar or anyone else involved in this mess. But it's hard to see how NYCB itself owes Ms. Waterbury compensation.

There is no way for NYCB, or any business or institution, to control sexual relationships between consenting adults, even when such relationships are against company policy. If people choose to send sexual images from their personal computers on their own time, the company can't prevent that either. They can punish or fire employees whose activities cast the company in a negative light, and that is what they have done. If anyone has any ideas as to how Finlay could have been prevented from treating Ms. Waterbury disrespectfully (allegedly), please share them. Unfortunately I could not access the actual complaint, so I'm puzzled about some of the claims. If dancers were fined $150,000, an enormous sum, how many dancers and who did the fining? The hotel, the company or the city of DC? Plying underage girls with drugs and alcohol is a crime. Was anyone charged? How does the complainant know that nude photos of Ms. Waterbury were given to a "pimp"? (Do pimps hang out with ballet dancers?) How does the complainant have knowledge of a rape that occurred in Vail (allegedly), or any other sexual crimes perpetrated by members of a company that she is not a part of? Ms. Waterbury seems to have a legitimate beef with her ex-boyfriend, and possibly a couple of his buddies. But I think she'll have a hard time persuading a judge or jury that NYCB is financially responsible for their shenanigans. (I do expect this to show up on an episode of Law and Order SVU this coming season.)

"Rotten to the core"? James Levine was known to have engaged in far worse conduct than Finlay and company, and he was the Metropolitan Opera's artistic head, but no one described the opera company in those terms. Likewise Matt Lauer at NBC and Charlie Rose at CBS and PBS - no one condemns the entire network for their actions. Les Moonves is about to land to earth in a $100 million dollar parachute, and many people knew how he exploited women and actively tried to destroy the careers of Ileana Douglas and Janet Jackson. Chris Rock famously said that "a man is only as faithful as his options" - if they can get away with bad behavior, some men will behave badly. There was nothing that NYCB could be reasonably been expected to do that would have prevented Ms. Waterbury's abuse. All they can do is react, and make clear going forward that such activities could lead to being fired. (Finlay and Ramasar could have forwarded photos to members of the company who didn't ask for them and didn't approve of their activities. It would be grossly unfair to punish them for the actions of others.) I don't know Ms. Waterbury's motives or state of mind regarding this matter. But it's not unfair or inaccurate for NYCB to mention that she first sought a financial payout. She did, and if she had received it, none of us would have known anything about this tawdry episode.

When an understudy goes on, union rules require his or her name to be posted in the lobby and/or announced at the start of the performance.

The NY Post article is misleading. Just because David Prottas went on for one performance of Carousel doesn't mean that Ramasar has been "replaced". Understudies go on in principal roles on Broadway all the time, because of illness, injury or personal circumstances. Ramasar may prefer to lay low for a few days and the show's producers probably think that's a good idea.

I am shocked by these allegations, which are way worse than what I imagined. If they had come to light a couple of years ago, it would have been quite a bombshell. But in light of revelations of sexual crimes and misconduct involving Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey, James Levine, Charles Dutoit, Louis CK, Les Moonves, Asia Argento - the list goes on - the allegations against Finlay, Ramasar and Catazaro are small potatoes. I'm not minimizing the harm done to Ms. Waterbury, but I doubt this will have lasting negative impact. Years ago, drug use at NYCB was so rampant that Balanchine fired six dancers in one fell swoop, but the scandal did not destroy the company's reputation. (I do think it is irresponsible for Craig Hall's name to be mentioned without making it clear which Craig Hall was involved.) I am fascinated by the claim that Finlay and company did $150,000 worth of damage to a hotel room. Hard to see how, unless they set the room on fire. Even $15,000 is pushing it. Surely someone on the hotel staff would have heard something and intervened before that much damage was inflicted.

If the ideal candidate for artistic director should be a former NYCB dancer, old enough to have worked directly with Balanchine and Robbins (and highly regarded by both), but young enough to serve for at least five years, known for being an excellent teacher, experienced in running a company (at least on tour), fiercely intelligent and well-versed in cultural politics, already resident in NYC, and a woman, because God knows it's time, there's one obvious choice - Heather Watts. Okay, I'll leave now!

Are there any company dancers serving on NYCB's board of directors? It seems that the suspensions were imposed from above without any input from the dancers themselves. They have a union representative in their ranks. If this happened in a Broadway show, Actors Equity would definitely have been involved. (Full disclosure - I have served as Equity Deputy on a number of shows.) Maybe the men would rather accept their suspensions than fight them. But the end result is a lot of wild speculation on the part of company fans, which may prove to be more detrimental than the truth.