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

[On Pointe]

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.

[Kathleen86]

For those who are critical of NYCB for not reaching some agreement with Ms. Waterbury when her lawyer first came to them -- remember we don't know what her demand was to them.  I am an employment lawyer and regularly handle harassment claims.  It is not at all unusual for a potential plaintiff to make an extremely high pre-litigation demand which the employer/defendant can't possible consider paying, even if they would like to settle the matter.  Ms. Waterbury's lawyer could easily have made a seven or eight figure demand.  And how would a non-profit arts institution make such a payment?   By using donor funds that have already been budgeted for all the normal things a ballet company needs to do.  There is rarely insurance that covers these kinds of claims -- and certainly not before the key players have had to testify under penalty of perjury at a deposition etc.  

On the criminal front -- victims often choose not to pursue that route because they are not in control of how the case is handled.  A district attorney can simply decide not to pursue it or can settle for a very small fine/punishment.  And in those cases the victim is just another witness -- they are not "at the table" when important decisions are made.

And I agree the complaint is very poorly written.  A rush job.

[BalanchineFan]

The timeline interests me. According to the complaint Finlay started sharing the images early Sept 2017.

Ms Waterbury discovered them on or about May 15, 2018. 

Ramasar’s comment “I love you.   Send me the texts/videos!” was dated May 21, 2018, after Ms Waterbury had discovered the email/text thread. 

It’s not what you would expect. (I’m actually trying not to think about this case at all, but I find it so disturbing.)

[KayDenmark]

Thank you, Kathleen86. It is so valuable to hear from someone with expertise in this type of case.

Just like Balanchinefan, I find the timeline interesting. Everyone seems to agree that the complaint was poorly written and a "rush job" as you say.

 

[sappho]

46 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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. 

This is victim-blaming.

1 hour ago, KayDenmark said:

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.

They don't have the standing. The company has the final word on casting. And even if dancers could refuse, it wouldn't be a free choice insofar as promotions depend on casting. That scenario is a paradigmatic example of a hostile work environment.

 

A final thought: I've just looked at John Clifford's Instagram and, perhaps unsurprisingly, he's managed to make this crisis all about himself. ("Some people have recently asked me what I thought about the problems now facing the board and company and if this could have happened in Balanchine's day. Absolutely not! is my answer.") Like others, he describes what has happened as a "sad situation" all around. It's an empty, depoliticizing phrase, used far too often in commentary about sexual assault to avoid discussing specifics--deliberately or not.

 

Edited September 8, 2018 by sappho

[KayDenmark]

1 minute ago, sappho said:

This is victim-blaming.

I disagree. Miss Waterbury was 18 or 19 at the time this occurred and was an adult, although a young adult.  Adult women, like adult men, have both rights and responsibilities. They cannot expect the world around them (like their ex-boyfriend's employer) to look out for them. I also agree with OnPointe that it is questionable that Miss Waterbury says she requires acute care when she seems to be living an active, well-rounded life. 

3 minutes ago, sappho said:

And even if dancers could refuse, it wouldn't be a free choice insofar as promotions depend on casting.

This is why I specified principals, who would presumably have more power than young dancers on the rise. 

51 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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.

This also struck me, and it seems like it would be material to any case, whether civil or criminal. With reference to the text messages, she could argue that they "popped up" on the computer while she was using it and she couldn't avoid them. This seems unlikely with emails.  Even if alerts have been activated, usually only the subject line is visible - you have to open the email to see text and pictures.

[On Pointe]

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.

[Drew]

On 9/8/2018 at 3:12 PM, On Pointe said:

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.

Fair warning? There is no evidence she knew he was sending around nude or semi-unclothed photos of her without her consent or that she knew he videotaped her in intimate situations. (Not just photographing her). How is she responsible for having known ahead of time what he was capable of? Plenty of substance abusers —even kinky ones — do NOT do what Finlay is charged with doing. And plenty of people older and more experienced than Waterbury have found themselves abused and taken advantage of...

It may well be a judge will agree with you that NYCB is not legally liable and not let the suit against the company go forward. On the other hand, a judge may feel that determination can’t be made without evidence or lack therof being established concerning allegations about the company made in the complaint.   Either way, it doesn’t mean Waterbury does not sincerely believe company culture played a role in her ordeal.  (And, for that matter, I suppose information about the company and not just Finlay may come out in a suit against Finlay alone.)

 Legalities aside: does one believe the company has thoroughly looked into things mentioned in the complaint that do have a bearing on workplace issues? I hope so, and at least I know I should say high-mindedly that I am suspending judgment on that. But truthfully I am skeptical.

Edited September 15, 2018 by Drew
typo

[ECat]

2 hours ago, On Pointe said:

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. 

Thank you all for such insightful information on this topic.  I am appalled and highly disappointed by the actions of Chase Finlay and the other people who took part in this.  Please how can I read the entire complaint?

[Marta]

52 minutes ago, Drew said:

Fair warning? There is no evidence she knew or could have known he was sending around nude or semi-unclothed photos of her without her consent or that she knew he videotaped her in intimate situations (not just photographing her). Though I suppose his lawyer may try to claim that....But, taking the case as it has been presented in the complaint: how is she responsible for having known ahead of time what he was capable of? Plenty of substance abusers —even kinky ones — do NOT do what Finlay is charged with doing. And plenty of people older and more experienced than Waterbury have found themselves abused and taken advantage of by boyfriends/girlfriends... Waterbury does not have "to take responsibility" for being the victim of improper and probably illegal action.

It may well be the case that a judge will agree with you that NYCB is not legally liable and not let the suit against the company go forward. I don't know the law but she is not an NYCB employee. I suppose it's possible a judge may decide that determination of the company's responsibility can’t be made without more evidence being presented concerning allegations about the company and company "culture" made in the complaint.  That means depositions etc. Either way, it doesn’t mean Waterbury does not sincerely believe company culture played a role in her ordeal.  (And, for that matter, I suppose information about the company and not just Finlay may come out in a suit against Finlay alone.) But I don't think her motives should be an issue here anyway. She has the right to try to deploy the law to her full advantage.

 Legalities aside: does one believe the company has thoroughly looked into things mentioned in the complaint that do have a bearing on workplace issues for all the dancers? I hope so, and I know I should say high-mindedly that I am suspending judgment on that. But truthfully I am skeptical -- partly for the reason mentioned in earlier posts that their statements on these issues have sometimes seemed to me weak and/or problematic.

Very well stated, and I completely agree.  Opinions on what Waterbury should or should not have done or known about seem rather unfair.  I'm skeptical too about the probity of the company's investigation.

[Marta]

8 minutes ago, ECat said:

Thank you all for such insightful information on this topic.  I am appalled and highly disappointed by the actions of Chase Finlay and the other people who took part in this.  Please how can I read the entire complaint?

I think this is the path.  I scribbled it down and hope it's complete.  Go to:

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/Login

You'll be asked to enter the code to prove you're not a robot. Then you enter the case number:

158220/2018

[ECat]

Marta!  Thank you so much!!!

[its the mom]

1 hour ago, Drew said:

Fair warning? There is no evidence she knew or could have known he was sending around nude or semi-unclothed photos of her without her consent or that she knew he videotaped her in intimate situations (not just photographing her). Though I suppose his lawyer may try to make that case....But, taking the case as it has been presented in the complaint: how is she responsible for having known ahead of time what he was capable of? Plenty of substance abusers —even kinky ones — do NOT do what Finlay is charged with doing. And plenty of people older and more experienced than Waterbury have found themselves abused and taken advantage of by boyfriends/girlfriends... Waterbury does not have "to take responsibility" for being the victim of improper and probably illegal action.  For that matter, she may consider her suit precisely a way of taking responsibility for the situation as it emerged in the spring, by seizing initiative and fighting on her own behalf.

It may well be the case that a judge will agree with you that NYCB is not legally liable and not let the suit against the company go forward.  I suppose it's also possible a judge may decide that determination of the company's responsibility can’t be made without more evidence being presented concerning allegations about the company and company "culture" made in the complaint--and that the case can go forward. That would mean depositions etc. However a judge rules, it doesn’t mean Waterbury does not sincerely believe the company played a role in her ordeal--after all three principal dancers are named, and a donor and other NYCB employees alluded to as well.  But I don't think her motives should be an issue here anyway unless one could show she was not being truthful. She has the right to try to deploy the law to her full advantage.

(It occurs to me, too, that the company must be aware that even if a suit against them does not go forward, further information about NYCB might come out in a case against Finlay alone.) 

 Legalities aside: does one believe the company has thoroughly looked into things mentioned in the complaint that do have a bearing on workplace issues for all the dancers? I hope so, and I know I should say high-mindedly that, at the least, I am suspending judgment on that question. But truthfully I am skeptical -- partly for the reason mentioned in earlier posts that the statements of company leaderhips on these issues have sometimes seemed to me weak and/or problematic.

I agree.  I read nothing about a warning.  Substance abusers and other types of relational abusers can hide their problems.  How many times have we read about domestic abuse surfacing well into a relationship?  (Do not hear what I am not saying. I am not accusing anyone of domestic abuse.) What I am saying is that when first entering a relationship, one is not aware of any issues their partner may have.  Those are revealed in time.  What does it say about Lauren Lovette for dating Finlay and being engaged to him (if we throw jabs at Waterbury.)  So, until his side of the story is revealed and the hearing/trial takes place, I hope we can refrain from any victim shaming.  Because, in reality, that's what it is.  

Edited September 8, 2018 by its the mom

[rkoretzky]

I’m rubbernecking. Can’t bear to read this, can’t turn away from it. 

This won’t be a long post. I just want to write in support of Sappho and the others who are calling some of these posts out as victim shaming. 

Whatever else is in play here: no means no. She said no. 

[Rock]

She says she said no. We don't know what actually happened here. 

[aurora]

2 minutes ago, Rock said:

She says she said no. We don't know what actually happened here. 

So you are implying he quit the company in which he was a principal dancer...because it isn't true?

[cubanmiamiboy]

3 hours ago, On Pointe said:

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. 

 

Agree 200 %

[On Pointe]

2 hours ago, Drew said:

Fair warning? There is no evidence she knew or could have known he was sending around nude or semi-unclothed photos of her without her consent or that she knew he videotaped her in intimate situations (not just photographing her). Though I suppose his lawyer may try to make that case....But, taking the case as it has been presented in the complaint: how is she responsible for having known ahead of time what he was capable of? Plenty of substance abusers —even kinky ones — do NOT do what Finlay is charged with doing. And plenty of people older and more experienced than Waterbury have found themselves abused and taken advantage of by boyfriends/girlfriends... Waterbury does not have "to take responsibility" for being the victim of improper and probably illegal action.  For that matter, she may consider her suit precisely a way of taking responsibility for the situation as it emerged in the spring, by seizing initiative and fighting on her own behalf.

It may well be the case that a judge will agree with you that NYCB is not legally liable and not let the suit against the company go forward.  I suppose it's also possible a judge may decide that determination of the company's responsibility can’t be made without more evidence being presented concerning allegations about the company and company "culture" made in the complaint--and that the case can go forward. That would mean depositions etc. However a judge rules, it doesn’t mean Waterbury does not sincerely believe the company played a role in her ordeal--after all three principal dancers are named, and a donor and other NYCB employees alluded to as well.  But I don't think her motives should be an issue here anyway unless one could show she was not being truthful. She has the right to try to deploy the law to her full advantage.

(It occurs to me, too, that the company must be aware that even if a suit against them does not go forward, further information about NYCB might come out in a case against Finlay alone.) 

 Legalities aside: does one believe the company has thoroughly looked into things mentioned in the complaint that do have a bearing on workplace issues for all the dancers? I hope so, and I know I should say high-mindedly that, at the least, I am suspending judgment on that question. But truthfully I am skeptical -- partly for the reason mentioned in earlier posts that the statements of company leaderhips on these issues have sometimes seemed to me weak and/or problematic.

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.

[Rick]

29 minutes ago, aurora said:

So you are implying he quit the company in which he was a principal dancer...because it isn't true?

Exactly. If Finlay is innocent, why did he resign?

[BalanchineFan]

1 hour ago, KayDenmark said:

 I also agree with OnPointe that it is questionable that Miss Waterbury says she requires acute care when she seems to be living an active, well-rounded life. 

This also struck me, and it seems like it would be material to any case, whether civil or criminal. With reference to the text messages, she could argue that they "popped up" on the computer while she was using it and she couldn't avoid them. This seems unlikely with emails.  Even if alerts have been activated, usually only the subject line is visible - you have to open the email to see text and pictures.

Texts pop-up on Apple computers. All the owner has to have done is entered their password to open the computer. I have a Mac (Apple) computer. It can be quite annoying. There is a way to turn it off, but people don’t always take the time. It’s clear Finlay has an apple phone because elsewhere in the complaint he sends a “live” photo, which is another Apple feature: 2 seconds of video connected to a photo.

You can require acute care for months and still hold down a job and go to school. One needn’t be comitted to a mental institution to get good talk therapy. Someone who’s experienced sexual betrayal/assault might have sleep disorders, panic attacks and/or issues with intimacy and trust.

And I agree with everyone saying no means no. 

From Good Therapy. Org

MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES RESULTING FROM SEXUAL ASSAULT

After sexual assault, survivors may feel their bodies are not really their own. Survivors often report feelings such as shame, terror, and guilt. Many blame themselves for the assault. 

Due to the trauma and negative emotions linked to sexual abuse, survivors may be at risk for mental health conditions. Survivors of sexual abuse may develop:

• Depression: The loss of bodily autonomy is often difficult to cope with. It can create feelings of hopelessness or despair. It may also reduce one’s sense of self-worth. Depressive feelings may be mild and fleeting, or they can be intense and long-lasting.
• Anxiety: The loss of bodily autonomy can also cause severe anxiety. Survivors may fear the attack could happen again. Some may experience panic attacks. Others may develop agoraphobia and become afraid to leave their homes. In some cases, a survivor may develop a chronic fear of the type of person who harmed them. Someone who was raped by a tall, fair-haired man with blue eyes may instinctively dislike, mistrust, or fear all men who match that description.
• Posttraumatic stress (PTSD): Someone who survived sexual assault may experience intense memories of the abuse. In some cases, flashbacks may be so disruptive they cause a survivor to lose track of surroundings. A person may also develop a related condition called complex posttraumatic stress (C-PTSD). C-PTSD yields a chronic fear of abandonment in addition to symptoms of traditional PTSD. Some people with C-PTSD also experience personality disruptions.
• Personality disruptions: Sexual abuse can sometimes result in personality disruptions such as borderline personality. The behavior linked with personality disruptions could actually be an adaption to abuse. For instance, a characteristic of borderline personality is a fear of abandonment. That fear might not be adaptive in adulthood. Yet avoiding abandonment might have protected someone from sexual abuse as a child.
• Attachment issues: Survivors may find it challenging to form healthy attachments with others. This is especially true among children who have been abused. Adults who were abused as children may have insecure attachment patterns. They could struggle with intimacy or be too eager to form close attachments.
• Addiction: Research suggests abuse survivors are 26 times more likely to use drugs. Drugs and alcohol can help numb the pain of abuse. Yet substance abuse often leads to the development of different concerns.

[MintyLee]

11 hours ago, On Pointe said:

My apologies for both the length of this post, and my unfamiliarity with how to respond to quoted passages in previous posts--this is my first time posting here, but I felt it necessary to correct a few speciously-reasoned comments and some misunderstandings of the facts. I include the portions of On Pointe's previous post in quotations as I write my response in bold because I found myself interjecting fairly often, and I hope to make it easier to distinguish my own thoughts from the original writing:

"Ms. Waterbury was not a "student of the NYCB",  she was a student of SAB,  a separate entity"

Alex's relationship with the company has no bearing on her standing to bring forth a case against City Ballet. She could have no relationship with NYCB or SAB, as someone earlier pointed out by comparing this case to that of Kathryn Novak (represented by Michael Avenatti) against Delta Sigma Phi at UCF (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/delta-sigma-phi-revenge-porn.html).

Among other things, City Ballet is being accused of negligence because three of its principal dancers--all senior men who have spent a decade or more with the company--allegedly participated in an activity that violated the law over the course of several months (September 3, 2017-May 15, 2018) during work hours and on the premises of either the Koch or the Rose (one could easily determine this by simply cross-referencing the timestamps on the texts, pictures, and videos sent with the company rehearsal schedules). 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). The question at hand is to what degree the culture created by City Ballet, through both its actions and inactions, made an environment where this sort of behavior is normalized and promoted. 

"...but she does not include SAB in her complaint."

At the time, none of the actors were associated with the school. Again, her being a former student at SAB is biographical but unimportant to the bearings of the case.

"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."  

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.

"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."

You don't know what evidence there is.

 

Quote

"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." 

Alex found out about these reprehensible activities after finals were over last semester at Columbia. Classes resumed this past Tuesday.

Being on the roster at Wilhelmina does not necessitate actively working. Many models have representation with agencies, but are not always actively going to castings. Quite a few who fit this description actually dance at City Ballet.

The Pix11 piece features video of Alex taken before these events unfolded, specifically during rehearsal for a Columbia Ballet Collaborative performance in the Streng Studio at Barnard in a past semester. Other videos of Alex's audition pieces are also available for media use and date to November 21, 2015.

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.

Quote

"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."  

You misinterpret what is written in the complaint here. The fine was not imposed by the company. It was imposed on the company by the hotel which suffered extensive damage during a tour. Those of you who followed certain IG stories during the DC tour this year may remember these details.

"She also can't show that the company was aware of exploitation of her and other female dancers,  and condoned and approved  of it."

The pattern of exploitation of female dancers at City Ballet is not difficult to see, and the question of how aware the company was of this ongoing issue can be answered quite readily be perusing HR complaints, disciplinary records, occasional pieces of reporting in the New York Times, and perhaps even asking why certain ballet masters have been on extended leave from the company. I'm sure former dancers who are no longer concerned with the repercussions on their career also have a few cents to add in this regard.

Humor me for a minute with a purely hypothetical thought exercise. Imagine a talented male dancer in Advanced Men at SAB who breaks curfew and comes back to the dorms with liquor on his breath. Because of his promise, he is disciplined lightly, or perhaps not at all. Imagine this happens several times during his school career and escalates from alcohol use to marijuana and then cocaine without adequate intervention from the school. Perhaps the school even turns a blind eye a few times, and decides on a warning followed by probation or suspension instead of expulsion.

Imagine this same talented male dancer becomes an apprentice in the company and sees his older colleagues--role models he has admired for years, who have gotten the same treatment from the school--abusing drugs, partying all night with underage girls, and then showing up to class the next morning wearing their dusk-to-dawn escapades as a BADGE OF HONOR. "A real dancer works hard and parties even harder," he learns. "This is how I become a principal," he thinks. "I have to show I can keep up with these guys. Out do them even." It is a competitive environment, after all.

Imagine his company sponsors open bar parties where alcohol flows freely and the young girls from SAB sneak in through the stage door without any trouble because the security guards have seen them come in and out during Nutcracker, or Romeo and Juliet, or another piece involving students. No one is checking for tickets anyway. Imagine that the members of the development department present are aware that these girls are underage but do not see it as their duty to say anything, especially because corps members who are equally underage are already present and already drinking. "The rules don't matter here," he learns. "It doesn't matter if I break them because I dance at New York City Ballet." On top of that, imagine the steering committee members and host committee putting on this event share in the culture of drunken excess and add to it a flare of debauchery that excites him.

Imagine this dancer also learn that his boss was charged with domestic violence against his wife but suffered no consequences because she recanted her story. Imagine this dancer even knows of instances where his older colleagues have been caught with drugs, but the company manages to arrange a less-career-devastating outcome. Imagine he also knows of verbal and emotional abuse by the men in his dressing room against their girlfriends, which no one seems to bat an eye at. Imagine his peers showing up to rehearsals drunk without repercussions, or with repercussions that are ineffective. Imagine his boss showing up to rehearsals with vodka cleverly disguised in a Starbucks cup. "I'm untouchable," he thinks. "I'm invincible."

Continue this line of thought over the course of two decades. When this male dancer feels untouchable and invincible enough to violate his girlfriend for the amusement of his friends and colleagues, can we honestly say that his company's normalization and promotion of a "frat-house" culture, where the male dancers are seemingly impervious to discipline or consequences, played no role in his (d)evolution? When a new apprentice arrives from the school and sees this dancer as his role model, is this same culture not at fault when the apprentice develops similar beliefs and habits?

Quote

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?  

The financially responsible party is New York City Ballet, Inc. Its assets as of last year's annual report were a little over 240 million, with over 180 million in endowment. It may or may not be covered by general liability insurance for damages paid out in a lawsuit, but, regardless, the dancers' salaries are determined by the dancer agreement negotiated between AGMA and the company. They would not lose any earnings in the case City Ballet loses this lawsuit. The company may lose subscribers and donors and prestige over this, and in the long-run, that may affect how budgets look in the future, but the dancers have certain guarantees for hours and wages provided in their dancer agreement each year. Perhaps it might mean less expensive costumes for the fall gala. Perhaps it might mean a fall gala where Alastair does not have to complain about how "the costumes encumber the movement" all together. Oh, perhaps.

Quote

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.

The evidentiary rules established in the Fourth Amendment that govern illegal search and seizure only apply to the state, namely, the police. If a non-police person discovers evidence of a crime against them, it does not matter how that evidence is discovered, it can be used.

Edited September 9, 2018 by MintyLee
Typos, grammar, elaboration, style

[BalanchineFan]

6 hours 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.

Do you really think that all people are incapable of change and growth? That once a person has comitted a crime there is no hope of rehabilitation, unless they have some named disease to rehab? I ask this separate from considerations of employment or dance careers. 

I think change is possible. What it takes is introspection, acknowledgement of one’s faults and misdeeds (or crimes), atonement, a real willingness to change and good old fashioned work. If someone came to me and apologized (ok, not Chase Finlay, he’s got a Looooooong way to go) acknowledged the pain they’d caused, and willingly submitted to punishment... well, I’m not sure that would do it, but add some time in there and who knows? I have seen people make remarkable turnarounds in their lives. 

Saying change is impossible because a person doesn’t have a named disease just seems inaccurate. Sinners repent, alcoholics work their recovery, people can grow up and take responsibility. They have to do it humbly, without a thought to receiving anything in return.

Of course, people can also change for the worse. 

[MintyLee]

4 hours ago, On Pointe said:

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.

In tandem with BalanchineFan's response above, in this scenario too, one's past actions and reputation do not define who they are or how they might grow. If Alex genuinely and generously believed that Chase wanted to be a better man than his reputation suggested, is her willingness to allow and hope for someone she cared about to change for the better really a negative or naive belief? I will say honestly that even knowing what I know, I still wish this for Chase.

[Balletwannabe]

24 minutes ago, BalanchineFan said:

Do you really think that all people are incapable of change and growth? That once a person has comitted a crime there is no hope of rehabilitation, unless they have some named disease to rehab? I ask this separate from considerations of employment or dance careers. 

I think change is possible. What it takes is introspection, acknowledgement of one’s faults and misdeeds (or crimes), atonement, a real willingness to change and good old fashioned work. If someone came to me and apologized (ok, not Chase Finlay, he’s got a Looooooong way to go) acknowledged the pain they’d caused, and willingly submitted to punishment... well, I’m not sure that would do it, but add some time in there and who knows? I have seen people make remarkable turnarounds in their lives. 

Saying change is impossible because a person doesn’t have a named disease just seems inaccurate. Sinners repent, alcoholics work their recovery, people can grow up and take responsibility. They have to do it humbly, without a thought to receiving anything in return.

Of course, people can also change for the worse. 

No one said change was impossible.  I said time off doesn't change ones character.  You have to actually want to change, and so far none of these men have admitted any wrong doing whatsoever.  Even if they did change- there are consequences to actions.  No female dancer should be forced to accept them into their trust again.  I don't believe suspending them goes far enough.  I don't believe for a second that every NYCB dancer is ok with them returning.  Not to mention none of the dancers who initially supported them have shown (public) support after the details came out.  

Edited September 9, 2018 by Balletwannabe

[MintyLee]

6 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

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. 

Personally, I find the word "cunning" to suggest a negative bias, but it seems to me that the people named in the complaint are those whose names were reported by the New York Times article on the suspensions, which preceded the filing of this lawsuit by a few days. Perhaps a libel lawyer could shed brighter light on the matter, but the other principal male dancers mentioned are generally referred to "by way of example only" (e.g. paragraphs 23 and 29) as the details are unproven and not immediately pertinent to the case except to show the type of pattern existing at City Ballet. Why Craig Hall and Alexa Maxwell are named by name is a mystery, and in the case of Alexa, I think unfair and unfortunate. That Amar is on Broadway or that Zach has endorsement deals are more accurately byproducts of their careers as talented and famous ballet dancers, as opposed to a reason for their being named. The reason they are named is because they are alleged to have committed these crimes.