Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

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


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Helene said:
14 hours ago, cobweb said:

As I still have not read the complaint, I thank those of you who have and have answered my questions about it. New question: is the "donor" who is mentioned identified in any way beyond "donor," in other words does it say major donor, sustaining donor, whether the person is on any committees, has formally hosted official functions, or any other designation beyond "donor"? I mean, I am a donor. 

The complaint does not say.  I'm not sure why it matters, when the complaint asks why the company has not barred the donor from donor events.  Nor has it done anything to the employee(s) involved in the email chain, one of whom allegedly wrote that he masterbated to the images he received.

You are right, Helene. "Donor" may be poorly defined, but that misses the point of that aspect of the complaint. I still haven't had the heart to read it. It's all too depressing. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

In addition, I suspect many of them may still be grappling with their own conflicting thoughts and emotions. It's easy to express disgust at something in the abstract, or at things that have taken place somewhere else involving no one that you know. It's quite a different matter when you learn that a friend, colleague, or loved one has done something reprehensible. In that situation, one's anger and disgust is doing battle with one's loyalty and affection. (Trust me, I've been there.)

I think we can and should grant the dancers some space to come to grips with the situation, sort out their own feelings — which may be some complicated tangle of anger, shock, sorrow, resentment, self-reproach, denial, and even forgiveness — and decide what they need to do as individuals, a community, and a company. 

ETA: and the same goes for all of the other people who work at NYCB, e.g., the musicians, the technical staff, the backstage crew, the costume shop, whoever. Company leadership of course needs to speak out publicly and clearly. 

 

10 minutes ago, AB'sMom said:

The silence from the dance community outside of NYCB is deafening as well, though. People who posted during the first wave of the #metoo movement seem oddly quiet now. 

Having spoken to a number of dancers outside of the NYCB community, I know many are grappling with the situation at hand.  Remember that the dance community is a small one.  Many of these dancers grew up together, going to summer programs together, auditioning together, etc.  So, while many of them are appalled by the alleged behavior, they are conflicted in their feelings.  Additionally, some of the silence may be a respect for the families of the dancers mentioned, as parents of dancers also become friends.  As Kathleen has said, people both inside and outside of the company are trying to come to grips with their feelings.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tapfan said:

If he wasn't  a participant in a high classical art, wasn't from an affluent family  and didn't look like a model from one of the old, pre-diversity,  Ralph Lauren adds, would folks use so delicate a term as  "troubled" to define Mr. Finlay?

Actually, I think Ramasar is getting off much easier than Finlay, perhaps because he's a more popular and (in my opinion) a better dancer, and perhaps because the original complaint didn't target him. But based on the complaint, he also shared inappropriate photos in the conversation. 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, AB'sMom said:

The silence from the dance community outside of NYCB is deafening as well, though. People who posted during the first wave of the #metoo movement seem oddly quiet now. 

The situation is horrific.  On top of that,  a treasured institution  is at considerable risk.  These are times when the situation leaves one aghast.  Even saying the institution is at risk implies there is something worth more than human lives.  I don't know how to express both my disgust and my concern at the same time.  

Link to comment

Perhaps the dancers at NYCB are restricted, but not dancers outside the Company.  But in a field where you can't start your own production company and shoot your product on an iPhone, and where dancers are still "boys" and "girls," it's not likely.  And even in professions where you have more resources for a career outside major companies and organizations, it took rare courage to come forward, the perpetrator in #metoo v2 was nearly universally feared and reviled, and the support for those who did come out from others in the profession was not immediate.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Helene said:

The complaint states that Finlay wrote in at least one communication that Waterbury did not know about the images and that she'd be pissed if she knew, ie, notice to the recipient(s) that they were illicit. 

Probably splitting hairs, but I think Finlay's "pissed" remark to Ramasar was in reference to "showing each other pictures of other women". Without more context, that could very well be Finlay mentioning that Waterbury would be mad that he's looking at pictures of other women (i.e. he was being unfaithful). Merson claims that this exchange shows that Finlay is acknowledging that that the pictures were taken and shared without consent, but that's not the only interpretation of that exchange. The "other women" could even mean women who aren't Waterbury or Maxwell.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, yukionna4869 said:
6 hours ago, Helene said:

The complaint states that Finlay wrote in at least one communication that Waterbury did not know about the images and that she'd be pissed if she knew, ie, notice to the recipient(s) that they were illicit. 

Probably splitting hairs, but I think Finlay's "pissed" remark to Ramasar was in reference to "showing each other pictures of other women". Without more context, that could very well be Finlay mentioning that Waterbury would be mad that he's looking at pictures of other women (i.e. he was being unfaithful). Merson claims that this exchange shows that Finlay is acknowledging that that the pictures were taken and shared without consent, but that's not the only interpretation of that exchange. The "other women" could even mean women who aren't Waterbury or Maxwell.

That’s actually how I interpreted it. Or I thought it could mean they were sharing pictures without their subjects’ permission. But that particular quote, taken out of context, didn’t seem to make sense to me as proof the pictures were taken without consent. You really need a whole thread of text messages to make sense of their meaning. I wonder if Waterbury and her lawyer have screenshots they will present in court (if this doesn’t get settled first). 

Link to comment

 

27 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

Actually, I think Ramasar is getting off much easier than Finlay, perhaps because he's a more popular and (in my opinion) a better dancer, and perhaps because the original complaint didn't target him. But based on the complaint, he also shared inappropriate photos in the conversation. 

It would be hard to be harder on Ramassar, since, while the allegations are appalling, they aren't as transgressive as having taken images of someone without their knowledge --  a criminal offense under NYC law -- and the level of criticism aimed at him would have to result in amplified criticism of Findlay. Plus, he's not being sued.  And he's not the only dancer named in the complaint, in addition to an unnamed donor and at least one employee, whose demographics and race we know nothing so far.

 

5 minutes ago, yukionna4869 said:
6 hours ago, Helene said:

The complaint states that Finlay wrote in at least one communication that Waterbury did not know about the images and that she'd be pissed if she knew, ie, notice to the recipient(s) that they were illicit. 

Probably splitting hairs, but I think Finlay's "pissed" remark to Ramasar was in reference to "showing each other pictures of other women". Without more context, that could very well be Finlay mentioning that Waterbury would be mad that he's looking at pictures of other women (i.e. he was being unfaithful). Merson claims that this exchange shows that Finlay is acknowledging that that the pictures were taken and shared without consent, but that's not the only interpretation of that exchange. The "other women" could even mean women who aren't Waterbury or Maxwell.

Not splitting hairs at all: I was wrong in my reading.  I've edited my original post to add a link to yours, so that a first time reader of my original post gets a heads up.  So thank you.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Deflope said:

Aren’t there laws for creating a hostile work environment though?  Every year, regardless of where I work, I have to watch some webinar on harassment in the work place and they specifically warn about behaviors like for example audible locker room talk, making suggestive comments or playboy pics on your computer desktop

Waterbury didn't work for NYCB, so I don't think she would be successful with a hostile work environment claim. It would be different if a company member was making the claims. Even then, to be successful, the plaintiff must establish that the employer knew of the hostile work environment; generally this is accomplished by having complained to HR or the supervisor of someone creating the hostile work environment about specific conduct. I don't think general knowledge by the company that Finlay was showing up to rehearsals drunk and trashing hotel rooms would suffice. (Unless the company knew he tended to grope people while drunk or something like that, which doesn't appear to be the case.)

I just read the complaint and I'm still having trouble understanding what NYCB's legal duty to Waterbury was, given that all of this apparently happened after she had left SAB. Generally in a complaint you want to establish the legal duty if it isn't obvious, otherwise the complaint isn't going to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (or whatever the New York state equivalent is). It does seem like NYCB was included for the publicity angle; suing Finlay on his own wouldn't have the same "juice" in terms of the media I wouldn't think. NYCB may have wronged her in the moral sense by turning a blind eye to the alleged behavior, but it doesn't automatically follow that she has a legally cognizable claim.

 

Edited by cinnamonswirl
forgot a word
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Helene said:

It would be hard to be harder on Ramassar, since, while the allegations are appalling, they aren't as transgressive as having taken images of someone without their knowledge --  a criminal offense under NYC law -- and the level of criticism aimed at him would have to result in amplified criticism of Findlay. Plus, he's not being sued.  And he's not the only dancer named in the complaint, in addition to an unnamed donor and at least one employee, whose demographics and race we know nothing so far.

Right. The three named dancers involved in this seem to be getting attention that’s proportionate to the accusations against them. Note how their hasn’t been a single critical comment on Catazaro’s Instagram posts and he hasn’t been the subject of nearly the same level of media coverage as Ramasar and Finlay. That makes sense based on how little is said about him in the complaint.

Edited by fondoffouettes
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, fondoffouettes said:

Note how their hasn’t been a single critical comment on Catazaro’s Instagram posts and he hasn’t been the subject of nearly the same level of media coverage as Ramasar and Finlay. That makes sense based on how little is said about him in the complaint.

Just a note, though, that Catazaro’s IG is (now) private, so he has some control over who sees and comments on his posts.

Edited by nanushka
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, fondoffouettes said:

Right. The three dancers involved in this seem to be getting attention that’s proportionate to the accusations against them. Note how their hasn’t been a single critical comment on Catazaro’s Instagram posts and he hasn’t been the subject of nearly the same level of media coverage as Ramasar and Finlay. That makes sense based on how little is said about him in the complaint.

Catazaro was the first to make his account private, which pretty much eliminated the opportunity for critical comments.

I looked at his almost immediately after the lawsuit broke and it was already private--as opposed to Ramasar who hung on for a day or more, and Finlay who was the last to shut his down.

 

Not disagreeing that there is more detail against Ramasar, and most about Finlay, but that isn't the only reason he didn't get raked over the coals on instagram.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, KayDenmark said:

Actually, I think Ramasar is getting off much easier than Finlay, perhaps because he's a more popular and (in my opinion) a better dancer, and perhaps because the original complaint didn't target him. But based on the complaint, he also shared inappropriate photos in the conversation. 

 I agree with you - I think it’s partly that Finlay’s words make him an easy villain, but also that people are going easier on Ramasar because he’s a more painful loss to NYCB and the dance community.  But yes, if Ramasar shared nude photos of a woman without her consent, then he is every bit as culpable as Finlay and deserves the exact same condemnation.  I’m assuming the reason Ramasar is not also a defendant is because he allegedly sent photos of another woman, not Waterbury, so she doesn’t have any standing to sue him.  And let’s not forget, although the lawsuit is just allegations, not proof, NYCB has confirmed that there is proof of something.

Link to comment

Allow me to add to the chorus of long-time admirers of New York City Ballet who are both shocked and saddened by the latest events. I particularly lament that Amar Ramasar is embroiled in this, as I was looking forward to his return to NYCB in January 2019. Hopefully it will still happen if he serves his punishment (time off) in a relatively honorable manner.  Sigh.

 

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, manhattangal said:

Allow me to add to the chorus of long-time admirers of New York City Ballet who are both shocked and saddened by the latest events. I particularly lament that Amar Ramasar is embroiled in this, as I was looking forward to his return to NYCB in January 2019. Hopefully it will still happen if he serves his punishment (time off) in a relatively honorable manner.  Sigh.

 

 

How does time off change someone's character?  I think it would be rather cruel to force any of the females to dance with them again.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Balletwannabe said:

How does time off change someone's character?  I think it would be rather cruel to force any of the females to dance with them again.

You are correct. Doing the time and punishment will not change that.

 

First Marcelo (ABT) and now Amar. Two of my all-time favorite male dancers gone, for whatever sordid reasons. It has NOT been a good year for my ballet companies.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Balletwannabe said:

How does time off change someone's character?  I think it would be rather cruel to force any of the females to dance with them again.

I think the word "force" is key here. The female dancers Amar works with know him better than we do, and they can put his recent behavior into context better than we can. It's up to them to judge if they feel comfortable partnering with him, particularly if we're talking about female principals who would presumably have the standing to say "no" if they wanted to.

It's possible that one of his established female fellow principals would volunteer to perform with him when (and if) he returns to the company in 2019. My impression (from very far away) is that he is well-liked within the company as well as by audiences and critics. 

Chase Finlay appears to have had fewer friends and supporters. 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, manhattangal said:

You are correct. Doing the time and punishment will not change that.

First Marcelo (ABT) and now Amar. Two of my all-time favorite male dancers gone, for whatever sordid reasons. It has NOT been a good year for my ballet companies.

 

What's frustrating is that Marcelo's situation seemed potentially salvageable. Whatever he did didn't occur at ABT and seemed to be a single incident from several years ago, not a pattern of behavior, at least based on what little knowledge we have. And he had what seemed to be an outpouring of support from fellow company members and the public. For weeks, his Instagram became an outlet for people to express support; I can't think of single negative comment. But if his resignation was designed to keep the details of his alleged sexual misconduct under wraps, he succeeded. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

Particularly if we're talking about female principals who would presumably have the standing to say "no" if they wanted to.

They have no standing that is not in their contracts.  They can make requests, but those requests don't have to be granted.  If not in their contract, their only recourses are to raise it to the union as a workplace complaint or, possibly sue.

9 minutes ago, fondoffouettes said:

What's frustrating is that Marcelo's situation seemed potentially salvageable. Whatever he did didn't occur at ABT and seemed to be a single incident from several years ago, not a pattern of behavior, at least based on what little knowledge we have. And he had what seemed to be an outpouring of support from fellow company members and the public. For weeks, his Instagram became an outlet for people to express support; I can't think of single negative comment. But if his resignation was designed to keep the details of his alleged sexual misconduct under wraps, he succeeded. 

We have no knowledge that in Gomes case it was a single incident or pattern of behavior.  We only know, that like Findlay, when confronted with something -- in Findlay's case, emails and text with images, in Gomes' case, unknown -- both resigned immediately.  There were no negative comments reported here in the weeks between the NYCB suspensions/resignation and the lawsuit for any of the men, just messages of support.  The difference in these cases is that in Gomes', no one has come forward with public allegations, which is why his career, at least in North America, has been salvaged. 

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Helene said:

They have no standing that is not in their contracts.  They can make requests, but those requests don't have to be granted.

I can't see this working, given NYCB's rep. In some pieces, the principal men come into contact with so many female dancers, of all ranks. It would turn into a casting nightmare if female dancers decided whether or not they wanted to come into contact (or even share the stage) with Catazaro and Ramasar. I think they either need to be brought back as fully integrated company members or not at all. 

Edited by fondoffouettes
Link to comment
1 hour ago, minervaave said:

 I agree with you - I think it’s partly that Finlay’s words make him an easy villain, but also that people are going easier on Ramasar because he’s a more painful loss to NYCB and the dance community.  But yes, if Ramasar shared nude photos of a woman without her consent, then he is every bit as culpable as Finlay and deserves the exact same condemnation.  I’m assuming the reason Ramasar is not also a defendant is because he allegedly sent photos of another woman, not Waterbury, so she doesn’t have any standing to sue him. 

I agree. From what I can glean from the lawsuit, this is what it says with regard to Ramasar:
It says that Ramasar sent photos to Finlay (paragraphs 53-54). It's not clear that the photos were sent without consent/permission from the woman.
The lawsuit also says Ramasar asked Finlay for photos (paragraph 52), to which Finlay complied. While Waterbury did not consent to her photos/videos that Finlay took and sent, it's not clear if Ramasar knew that. 
Merson wrote that Finlay has acknowledged to Ramasar that the photos of Waterbury were taken without consent (paragraph 61), but I didn't the evidence he used to support that claim to be sufficient to prove that claim (as I wrote above regarding the "pissed" comment). I think if Merson's claims turn out to be correct, then I believe Ramasar is as culpable.

I'm curious as to how Merson decided which dancers to name, and which dancers remained anonymous. The behavior 55 & 56 are so much more misogynistic than Ramasar & Finlay's exchange. Paragraph 55 also involves an unnamed male principal share photos of a female dancer with Finlay, but it's also unclear if that was done with or without her consent.

Edited by yukionna4869
clarify some stuff
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, fondoffouettes said:

I can't see this working, given NYCB's rep. In some pieces, the principal men come into contact with so many female dancers, of all rank. It would turn into a casting nightmare if female dancers decided whether or not they wanted to come into contact with Catazaro and Ramasar. I think they either need to be brought back as fully integrated company members or not at all. 

I don't know how much choice they have in the matter with respect to casting. Gina Pazcoguin's words here seems to agree with what Helene said. https://youtu.be/kyIzw8MqjFg?t=4m43s

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, yukionna4869 said:


I'm curious as to how Merson decided which dancers to name, and which dancers remained anonymous. 

 

Merson and his team appear to be rather cunning and extremely media-friendly - in fact, Merson lists his ability to get cases featured in the media on the business website where he seeks potential clients. The fact that Ramasar is on Broadway and a slightly more recognizable name than Finlay might have been one of the reasons his name was used. Ditto for Catazaro and his Bloomingdale's endorsement deal. 

Link to comment

The lawsuit is dated 5 September.  The Ramasar's and Catazarro's suspensions were announced in the NYT on 28 August.  The suspensions, based on the communications to the Company, show that the Company found these dancers culpable of something related to them, and beyond any publicity Ramasar's name might create, those punishments, however inadequate I might find them, would support the suit.  Had other dancers been suspended, or employees, or a donor barred publicly, I would have expected them to be named in the suit for the same reason.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...