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

[Quiggin]

Toni Bentley has just written an article for the Times titled, "The Decline and Fall of New York City Ballet."

Quote

Unsurprisingly, social media, has played its predictably insidious role at New York City Ballet. The sacred fourth wall, between audience and artist, was a necessity to our work, to making the magic. Now ballerinas tweet from the wings about their injuries and vegan muffins, amassing vast Twitter and Instagram followers, with endless selfies and self-promotion.

The company’s recent ad campaigns showing bare midriffs and legs, windblown hair, and suggestive poses by slim young dancers — have used sex as a marketing tool, lowering the lure to the prurient. In that context, the Finlay scandal is no surprise. The current lawsuit with its allegations of appalling misogynistic behavior is on a continuum.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/opinion/new-york-city-ballet-decline-fall.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

[nanushka]

6 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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.)

Many rape victims, I would imagine, enjoy having sex in situations where their autonomy is not being violated. By this same logic, it seems to me, those particular victims might not find their violation unbelievably painful.

Edited September 18, 2018 by nanushka

[aurora]

36 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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.)

 

There is a huge difference in deciding to put an image of yourself out there (owning an image), and having illicit photos of you passed around by your male colleagues, without your knowledge, specifically for the purpose of jerking off.  

[morningside]

37 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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.)

It doesn't matter if dancers or models are comfortable with their bodies or have posted pictures pictures of themselves scantily clad. The difference is the matter of agency, and of consent. And there is a tremendous difference between a scantily clad commercial photo and one that is illicitly taken during an intimate situation. 

[Drew]

10 hours ago, On Pointe said:

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?

I had read here about Kowroski and Veyette, but I'll take your word for it that there are many...in any case, if evaluating the situation shouldn't be a popularity contest, than even more so it shouldn't be a popularity contest in which the votes of the most famous/admired dancers count for more than others, especially when they are friends with one of the parties involved in the situation. The issues have to be looked at more coldly than that.

As far as whether it might be painful to dancers to have unclothed photos of themselves circulated without their permission--the point is they have the same rights as anyone else and photos they themselves choose to disseminate are an entirely different matter.  (THREE people just posted on this issue while I was typing so...uh...yeah -- what they said.)

I just saw, too, the Bentley piece posted, though I have yet to read it. I have long found a few of the publicity campaigns by NYCB sometimes sexualized in a way that I personally didn't care for  (And I didn't even know about the young patrons video.) I believe I used the word "soft core porn" to friends YEARS, maybe even decades, ago about one campaign though I don't know that I ever said that on the internet! However, it was always my thought that perhaps I was being too puritanical, showing my age etc.  After all, ballet IS sexy--or can be. But I will read the Bentley piece with interest.  I don't think she is known for being puritanical at any rate!

Edited to add: I did just read it. It's less informative/insightful than I had hoped. Or, rather, it's more mourning for Balanchine and dismay at Martins.  She doesn't appear to give anyone or anything under the Martins regime (and since) the least benefit of the doubt on any front.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Drew

[On Pointe]

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.

 

[Drew]

22 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

[...] 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)?

 

Let's just say if an employer didn't seriously discipline someone who had circulated illicit/illegal photos of a fellow worker I'd wonder if that wouldn't be potentially problematic even if the particular worker forgave the person who circulated them. Why? because of the creation of a hostile workplace for others who might feel very differently should it ever happen to them or indeed even have concern about being in a workplace where illegal behavior was tolerated.  To say nothing of the moral pressures it places on an individual to pretend they don't care when they do ("oh if you didn't make such a fuss poor X wouldn't be losing his/her job"...)

The situation here doesn't involve an employee, so it's different. But the allegations in the complaint suggest employees may have been victims as well. It's an allegation--it may just be based on rumors; it may not be true. But it's a serious one and it seems to me a very mild position to hope the company has been looking into the matter to see if there is anything behind it.  (To say nothing of some of the other allegations.) Even the most minimal respect for all the dancers--male and female--and their status as professionals would suggest it shouldn't be blithely ignored--and even if fear of future lawsuits wasn't yet another issue.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Drew

[Helene]

18 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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)?

Since the other dancers whose photos were distributed weren't named and haven't identified themselves, we have no idea how outraged they are, or what they feel about Catazaro and Ramasar.  We may learn who they are if there is a trial, and then cross-reference social media to see if/what they've posted.  We likely won't learn if they gave feedback to the Company, or whether the Company acted on their feedback. 

However, they aren't the ones who get to decide whether Catazaro and Ramasar should be fired, either, and they don't get to decide if they are named as part of discovery with regard to the lawsuit.  I don't know what the scope of the arbitrator will be.  The only thing they get to decide is whether or not to be proactive about discussing it, and, if there are legal remedies, whether to pursue them. 

[laurel]

44 minutes ago, Quiggin said:

Toni Bentley has just written an article for the Times titled, "The Decline and Fall of New York City Ballet."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/opinion/new-york-city-ballet-decline-fall.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

"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.”

[FPF]

42 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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?

Dancers who don't support them may not feel able or inclined to express this publicly. There are ~90 dancers. Do we know that these dancers include the soloist whose pictures were shared? The religious dancer who was going to be teamed up on? 

Also, there were a number of postings on NYCB social medial from people who said that they wouldn't donate/attend.  Some posters here expressed similar thoughts. 

[aurora]

20 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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.

 

No we are not. Photos snuck on the sly of dancers changing can also be used for masturbatory purposes. I didn't think that was necessary to explain but I suppose it is.

[nanushka]

26 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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.

Personally, if I were changing in front of one or more people I generally feel the perfectly comfortable changing in front of, and if I discovered I had been surreptitiously photographed in that situation and that the photos had been shared with others, I would consider that a violation of my trust and autonomy in an intimate situation.

Edited September 18, 2018 by nanushka

[Balletwannabe]

Just now, nanushka said:

Personally, if I were changing in front of one or more people I generally feel the perfectly comfortable changing in front of, and if I discovered I had been surreptitiously photographed in that situation and that the photos had been shared with others, I would consider that a violation of my trust and autonomy in an intimate situation.

Same.

[On Pointe]

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?  

[Helene]

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.

13 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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?  

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 certainly not anything we can answer here.

[On Pointe]

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?  

[Helene]

4 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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?  

And the arbitrator may decide that how they comported themselves outside work is relevant as well, because it impacted the workplace.  We just have to wait to see how it unfolds.

[On Pointe]

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.

[Secret]

NYCB: “A workplace where our dancers and staff feel respected and valued is our highest obligation.” 

[fordhambae]

13 minutes ago, Secret said:

NYCB: “A workplace where our dancers and staff feel respected and valued is our highest obligation.” 

Yet their rebuttal against Waterbury's lawsuit is all of the allegations “which were off-hours activities that were not known, approved, or facilitated by NYCB.”, yet they fired people based on off hours activities.

What exactly does this statement about the workplace have to do with the matter at hand. There seem to be a lot of PR moves by the company going on, as somebody has previously mentioned.

[Helene]

For people who have stated that there is a systemic issue, most have also stated that they believe it started before January 2018, during which time Martins controlled NYCB and SAB. So, yes, it would be a referendum on Martins' stewardship.

Bentley very specifically said, 

Quote

The company’s recent ad campaigns showing bare midriffs and legs, windblown hair, and suggestive poses by slim young dancers — have used sex as a marketing tool, lowering the lure to the prurient. In that context, the Finlay scandal is no surprise. The current lawsuit with its allegations of appalling misogynistic behavior is on a continuum.

in a specific context, which is the way the Company portrayed itself and how Balanchine and Kirstein expected company members to behave when they represented NYCB.  The Company had a choice whether or not to market itself that way, wave or no wave or whether Bentley was part of it as a writer who was no longer with the Company.

 

11 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Yet their rebuttal against Waterbury's lawsuit is all of the allegations “which were off-hours activities that were not known, approved, or facilitated by NYCB.”, yet they fired people based on off hours activities.

The rebuttal to the lawsuit says they were unaware, they did not approve, and they are not responsible.  They did not deny that the behavior happened, and the firings were justified by the impact the behavior had on establishing "[a] workplace where our dancers and staff feel respected and valued."

Whether they have the authority to do so will be a matter of arbitration (at least at this point), which takes laws and precedents into account as well as the contract, as the contract is subject to laws, regardless of what is written.  

[On Pointe]

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."

[fordhambae]

22 minutes ago, Helene said:

The rebuttal to the lawsuit says they were unaware, they did not approve, and they are not responsible.  They did not deny that the behavior happened, and the firings were justified by the impact the behavior had on establishing "[a] workplace where our dancers and staff feel respected and valued."

Whether they have the authority to do so will be a matter of arbitration (at least at this point), which takes laws and precedents into account as well as the contract, as the contract is subject to laws, regardless of what is written.  

I wouldn't feel like a respected and valued employee if I had been associated with an institution for 20+ years (school, apprentice, corps, soloist, principal) only to have the company turn their back on me for an out of work activity without a chance to redeem or better myself.

I can only imagine that other dancers will now be concerned about what is and isn't appropriate behavior according to the 'norms' of the company. What might be 'norm' for a billionaire board member is very different from a 'norm' of a 20 something year old.

[FPF]

3 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

I wouldn't feel like a respected and valued employee if I had been associated with an institution for 20+ years (school, apprentice, corps, soloist, principal) only to have the company turn their back on me for an out of work activity without a chance to redeem or better myself.

I can only imagine that other dancers will now be concerned about what is and isn't appropriate behavior according to the 'norms' of the company. What might be 'norm' for a billionaire board member is very different from a 'norm' of a 20 something year old.

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.

[fordhambae]

1 hour ago, FPF said:

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.

I will point out that the masses engage in picture sharing of all natures on a round the clock basis (ie: Snapchat). Whether it is appropriate is one thing but normal it most certainly is.