Finlay Resigns, Catazaro and Ramasar Suspended -- Update: Catazaro and Ramasar Fired

[Rick]

If the case goes to trial, will the explicit photos and videos be presented to the jury (and anyone else observing the trial)?

[variated]

They would likely be made subject to protective (i.e. limited to counsel, judge, court clerk etc.) discovery.  I don't think any decent person who doesn't need to see them should have any interest in doing so.  It may be that, if the respondent does not dispute their existence, there will be no need to disclose them at all.

[balanchinefreak]

2 hours ago, Helene said:

He can only cop a plea if he is brought up on criminal charges.  If this remains on the civil track, even settling before trial does not prove anything, except that whoever settled believes that settling is better than going forward, and there are many reasons why someone would do that, aside from guilt.  If a case is settled before trial, an organization will often publicize a disclaimer that it's not an admission of guilt.

The only thing we know is that communications were submitted to NYCB, they did an internal investigation, and, based on the results, they decided to suspend two dancers and to attempt to contact a third about discipline.

This is true. Chase will probably never face the criminal charges he so richly deserves. Another reason not to feel sorry for him.

[vagansmom]

I wonder to what degree substance abuse has played a part in Finlay's behavior? From reading these many pages, I see that it's been commented on several times. 

 

[Drew]

6 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

I stand with humans. Both Alexandra Waterbury and Chase Finlay are humans with strengths and weaknesses, good and bad sides, gifts and faults, bad deeds and good deeds.

De-humanizing either one of them does not promote justice, kindness, or a better world.

Finlay (and Ramasar and Catazaro and the donor, etc.) may deserve punishment, but nobody deserves hatred and humiliation.

Good thoughts. The only thing I would add —which may just have seemed too obvious to you to write —is that certain situations still call for taking sides—giving certain kinds of support to some humans and not giving it to others. Even standing with some and not others regarding that particular situation. Neutrality in those cases or agreeing that ‘everyone makes mistakes’ is taking a side, the side of the status quo and sometimes of the more powerful  ...

In fact, like many posting here I don’t feel I know enough to have completely formed views of this situation and obviously I can’t determine the truth of much in the legal complaint. But due to the company’s disciplinary actions and its history along with statements its leadership has made during past investigations, I certainly do feel I know enough to feel great sympathy for Waterbury’s situation and to be disturbed by insinuations being made against her—some direct, some indirect—and to remain skeptical that problems inside the company (whatever the strictly legal issues are) have been addressed or are nonexistent  I also rather doubt Lovette would have posted (however vaguely) about supporting other women and working behind the scenes to make things better if there were no issues women dancers at NYCB wanted to see addressed.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Drew
spelling error

[Helene]

37 minutes ago, vagansmom said:

I wonder to what degree substance abuse has played a part in Finlay's behavior? From reading these many pages, I see that it's been commented on several times. 

 

The direct references to substance abuse are that an unnamed Principal Dancer was sent to rehab after police were summoned on domestic violence allegations, and that the Company's response sent a message that both types of abuse would be tolerated, that Findlay threw a party in his DC hotel room where alcohol flowed and there were underage invitees, and that he came to work intoxicated, which Stafford was aware of.

There's no context, though, for the latter, and over the years, dancers have reported being under the influence, especially around holidays and special occasions. 

We're not diagnosticians, and, presumably this will be raised in discovery.

[balletforme]

Wow. . . just wow.  Moral courage is indeed rare.  

[On Pointe]

1 hour ago, Helene said:

The direct references to substance abuse are that an unnamed Principal Dancer was sent to rehab after police were summoned on domestic violence allegations, and that the Company's response sent a message that both types of abuse would be tolerated, that Findlay threw a party in his DC hotel room where alcohol flowed and there were underage invitees, and that he came to work intoxicated, which Stafford was aware of.

There's no context, though, for the latter, and over the years, dancers have reported being under the influence, especially around holidays and special occasions. 

We're not diagnosticians, and, presumably this will be raised in discovery.

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.

[fordhambae]

3 hours ago, balanchinefreak said:

This is true. Chase will probably never face the criminal charges he so richly deserves. Another reason not to feel sorry for him.

This is speculation. It has not been proven that he took any images without permission these are her allegations. We only know that "material was sent". Even then, it must be proven that the intent was to cause harm. It is grossly unfair of you to suggest that anybody deserves anything at this point.

[Helene]

4 hours ago, fordhambae said:

This is speculation. It has not been proven that he took any images without permission these are her allegations. We only know that "material was sent". Even then, it must be proven that the intent was to cause harm. It is grossly unfair of you to suggest that anybody deserves anything at this point.

It is speculation that Finlay will not face criminal charges.  Waterbury has not decided whether to press them, and then it's up to the prosceutor's office.

It is not correct that definitive proof is needed to get an indictment and have to face criminal charges.  Those standards are less than those for trials themselves.

And, as has been discussed several times upthread, there are two separate laws, and only for revenge porn, which is separate from taking images without the subject knowing, is intent to harm relevant.

[balanchinefreak]

30 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

This is speculation. It has not been proven that he took any images without permission these are her allegations. We only know that "material was sent". Even then, it must be proven that the intent was to cause harm. It is grossly unfair of you to suggest that anybody deserves anything at this point.

 

 

From the NY Times:

Mr. Scharf’s statement said that “New York City Ballet is confident that there is no basis for this lawsuit, and vehemently denies the allegations that the company has condoned, encouraged, or fostered the kind of activity that Mr. Finlay and the others named have participated in, which were off-hours activities that were not known, approved, or facilitated by NYCB.”

Scharf didn't say, "activity that Mr. Finlay and the others named are alleged to have participated in..."

Scharf said, "participated in."

Scharf's statement was vetted by lawyers. He is the head of BNY Mellon. He's not stupid.

"It must be proven that the intent was to prove harm."

I'm not a lawyer, but there is a concept that basically says, "The thing speaks for itself." 

The "revenge porn" law in NY State has already been discussed. According to this, he just might well be guilty:

https://www.newyorkcriminallawyer-blog.com/revenge-porn-in-new-york-aggravated-harassment-dissemination-of-an-unlawful-surveillance-image-or-an/

[fordhambae]

18 minutes ago, Helene said:

It is speculation that Findlay will not face criminal charges.  Waterbury has not decided whether to press them, and then it's up to the prosceutor's office.

It is not correct that definitive proof is needed to get an indictment and have to face criminal charges.  Those standards are less than those for trials themselves. 

And, as has been discussed several times upthread, there are two separate laws, and only for revenge porn, which is separate from taking images without the subject knowing, is intent to harm relevant.

I never suggested anything about definitely proof needed for an indictment. 

10 minutes ago, balanchinefreak said:

I'm not a lawyer, but there is a concept that basically says, "The thing speaks for itself." 

There's no point in my elaborating to someone who doesn't grasp that concept.

The "revenge porn" law in NY State has already been discussed. According to this, he just might well be guilty:

https://www.newyorkcriminallawyer-blog.com/revenge-porn-in-new-york-aggravated-harassment-dissemination-of-an-unlawful-surveillance-image-or-an/

In the article provided the ending states "In sum, though the Court wrote on numerous occasions that the acts of the defendant were morally reprehensible and offensive, it ultimately held that as charged, the claims against the defendant were not sufficient." 

[Helene]

"Criminal charges" was in the quote to which proof was referenced.

Scharff did not describe the activities: he only said that they had to do with communications that violated company norms.

He said zero about how the images in the communications were taken or obtained in the first place. He did not speak to whether Findlay too them without Waterbury knowing or whether Findlay sent them without her permission.

[fordhambae]

8 minutes ago, Helene said:

"Criminal charges" was in the quote to which proof was referenced.

Scharff did not describe the activities: he only said that they had to do with communications that violated company norms.

He said zero about how the images in the communications were taken or obtained in the first place. He did not speak to whether Findlay too them without Waterbury knowing or whether Findlay sent them without her permission.

My speculation refers to him 'deserving' anything.

[Kaysta]

59 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

My speculation refers to him 'deserving' anything.

Innocent people don’t resign without defending themselves.  I have no doubts Findlay is a horrible person.  

[Ilovegiselle]

25 minutes ago, Kaysta said:

Innocent people don’t resign without defending themselves.  I have no doubts Findlay is a horrible person.  

That’s quite a horrible thing to say without knowing all the facts.  

Would we say the same thing about Marcelo? I don’t think so.

[aurora]

38 minutes ago, Ilovegiselle said:

That’s quite a horrible thing to say without knowing all the facts.  

Would we say the same thing about Marcelo? I don’t think so.

I would, and I love Marcelo. The difference is, of course, we don't know what he was accused of. We do with Finlay.

[Villette]

I stand with Alexandra Waterbury. I condemn all of the behavior alleged in her complaint. I believe her and admire her bravery in coming forward.

The actions alleged are violations of the body. Ballet involves touching the body of another in an intimate manner, and no one who is known to have violated the body of colleague should be allowed back in a job that requires intimate contact . If a top banker stole money, would he be hired back into his position so long as he offered a sincere apology? No. He would never be allowed to work there again. 

My comfort level watching these men dance is not a consideration. The well-being of the performers, and not my enjoyment of the performance, is what matters most. 

I appreciate Lauren Lovette and Ashley Bouder for their courage to address the situation via Instagram. They did not have to do so. I see comments in this thread asking for more women, principal dancers, to address these claims. Why isn't the same being asked of the men in the New York City Ballet? They, too, have an opportunity to reach of and address the situation, to stand as allies with their female colleagues. Yet the comments here only mention the women. I can't help but see the double standard.

 

[fordhambae]

49 minutes ago, Ilovegiselle said:

That’s quite a horrible thing to say without knowing all the facts.  

 

I agree, there are definitely people on both sides of the spectrum writing here.

Type a) lets wait to find out the facts, not just take allegations as fact...

Type b) he resigned so he's guilty and deserves whatever happens....

 

I personally am not a lawyer, nor am I the courts, nor am I god. I don't know all of the facts, I haven't seen the evidence and beyond that I have a Judaeo-christian upbringing and believe in forgiveness and hope that deep down there is some goodness in us all.

Edited September 14, 2018 by fordhambae
grammar

[Kaysta]

2 hours ago, Ilovegiselle said:

That’s quite a horrible thing to say without knowing all the facts.  

Would we say the same thing about Marcelo? I don’t think so.

I know enough of the facts to come to a reasonable conclusion:

1.  Finlay resigned before he could be investigated

2.  NYCB did an investigation and punished two dancers (one whom is exceedingly popular) and put out a statement essentially saying while they—NYCB—are not guilty, , they did have enough evidence to suspend dancers they were relying on for their fall season.   I’m sure NYCB has seen the texts and did not decide to suspend without evidence.

 

I am not going to feel bad for someone who abuses others.  Women are not farm animals.  Covering up or minimizing abuse is not ok with me, no matter who does it.  No matter how great a dancer they are.  No matter how much I love the institution they are a part of.

Further, whether I, or you, forgive Chase Finlay means nothing.  We are not the victims here.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Kaysta
To correct FINLAY’s last name

[vagansmom]

I believe the spelling of Chase's last name is Finlay. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

 

[Helene]

44 minutes ago, vagansmom said:

I believe the spelling of Chase's last name is Finlay. Please correct me if I'm wrong. 

 

It is, and I apologize for having misspelled it and thus leading people astray.

[its the mom]

Resigned because he’s guilty; resigned before he could be investigated .... All our assumptions. Perhaps the company gave him a choice ... resign or we let you go. We do not know, and we may never know. 

[Marta]

1 hour ago, Kaysta said:

I know enough of the facts to come to a reasonable conclusion:

1.  Finlay resigned before he could be investigated

2.  NYCB did an investigation and punished two dancers (one whom is exceedingly popular) and put out a statement essentially saying while they—NYCB—are not guilty, , they did have enough evidence to suspend dancers they were relying on for their fall season.   I’m sure NYCB has seen the texts and did not decide to suspend without evidence.

 

I am not going to feel bad for someone who abuses others.  Women are not farm animals.  Covering up or minimizing abuse is not ok with me, no matter who does it.  No matter how great a dancer they are.  No matter how much I love the institution they are a part of.

Further, whether I, or you, forgive Chase Finlay means nothing.  We are not the victims here.

Thank you Kaysta for  one of the best summaries I've read. I completely agree.  

[Helene]

2 hours ago, its the mom said:

resigned before he could be investigated .... All our assumptions. Perhaps the company gave him a choice ... resign or we let you go. We do not know, and we may never know. 

According to the NYT,  "The statement said that efforts to reach Mr. Finlay to discuss the matter were unsuccessful, and that he had resigned last week."  So we do know that he resigned before the Company could say anything.  I had made the same mistake earlier and was corrected.