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

[MintyLee]

8 hours ago, cinnamonswirl said:

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.

 

The complaint does not allege a hostile work environment. It alleges negligence. See the cause of action on page 17 of the complaint. Hostile work environment and negligence are two distinct ideas. You are correct that she would not have standing to allege hostile work environment because she is not an employee of City Ballet, but that is not what she is alleging. One does not have to belong to an institution to allege negligence. By way of an overly simplified example: say a tree grows in my yard with a branch that I know is liable to break off, and I do not trim it. If that branch falls on you or your car, you do not have to be a member of my household to sue me. You could not even know me and sue me. And you would win.

[Karina]

34 minutes ago, MintyLee said:

 The reason they are named is because they are alleged to have committed these crimes.

What crimes have the suspended been accused of? I don't see any criminal charges against them.

[sappho]

2 hours ago, BalanchineFan said:

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.

This exactly. I wasn't going to comment further, but this one hits close to home for me. One can be 'on the roster and dancing,' so to speak, without ever letting on that one suffers privately due to past trauma, grief, sexual assault, eating disorders, and mental illness. I've been one of those students. Ambitious, intense academic environment -- much like Alexandra. One becomes astonishingly good at hiding pain from other people.

2 hours ago, cubanmiamiboy said:

5 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 %

Circulating surreptitiously recorded videos and images is not a kink. It is a crime.

Deriving pleasure from knowing that one is being recorded is a kink. It's very common. That doesn't make circulating those recordings without consent any less of a crime.

Edited September 9, 2018 by sappho

[cinnamonswirl]

16 minutes ago, MintyLee said:

The complaint does not allege a hostile work environment. It alleges negligence. See the cause of action on page 17 of the complaint. Hostile work environment and negligence are two distinct ideas. You are correct that she would not have standing to allege hostile work environment because she is not an employee of City Ballet, but that is not what she is alleging. One does not have to belong to an institution to allege negligence. By way of an overly simplified example: say a tree grows in my yard with a branch that I know is liable to break off, and I do not trim it. If that branch falls on you or your car, you do not have to be a member of my household to sue me. You could not even know me and sue me. And you would win.

Yes, I was attempting to explain to  (and quoted) a previous poster who was asking about hostile work environment and why Waterbury presumably didn't make that claim.

Even negligence requires a legal duty owed by the tortfeasor to the injured party. The elements of negligence are: duty, breach, causation and damages. In your hypothetical, it is established law (both from case law and by statute, in most jurisdictions) that homeowners owe a duty to the public to not allow tree limbs to fall on passers by. Here, I don't see what duty NYCB owed Waterbury based on the facts presented; I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong and there was a duty (and it would be helpful to me if you can provide a cite).

Also, Waterbury is also alleging other torts that are not negligence torts (assault, IIED) and require specific intent by the tortfeasor.

[Rock]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

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

I'm not implying Finlay is innocent. What I'm saying is we don't know exactly what happened here. How in the world did Finlay wind up with those pictures and videos? Is he some video wizard hiding cameras, etc.? It might be possible she knew they were being filmed, but never thought outsiders would see it. We've heard from a lawyer basically - a "complaint". We already know some of it is inaccurate so one wonders what else might not be correct in that document. All I'm suggesting is holding off on judgement until there's more information. 

[MintyLee]

1 minute ago, cinnamonswirl said:

Yes, I was attempting to explain to  (and quoted) a previous poster who was asking about hostile work environment and why Waterbury presumably didn't make that claim.

Even negligence requires a legal duty owed by the tortfeasor to the injured party. The elements of negligence are: duty, breach, causation and damages. In your hypothetical, it is established law (both from case law and by statute, in most jurisdictions) that homeowners owe a duty to the public to not allow tree limbs to fall on passers by. Here, I don't see what duty NYCB owed Waterbury based on the facts presented; I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong and there was a duty (and it would be helpful to me if you can provide a cite).

Also, Waterbury is also alleging other torts that are not negligence torts (assault, IIED) and require specific intent by the tortfeasor.

Ah, my sincere apologies if I perceived a disagreement where there was none! And thank you for providing a clear way of conceptualizing what negligence means. The extent of my legal knowledge probably derives from episodes of the Good Wife, but I did a quick google search for "examples of duty in negligence" and found this:

"Business owners have a duty to take reasonable care to keep their premises safe for customers. Generally, business owners must regularly inspect their property for unsafe conditions and either warn customers of their existence or remedy them within a reasonable time frame" (McCormick & Murphy, PC). 

Another site notes a key element to duty in negligence is "the foreseeability of harm."

Could we perhaps venture something like this: Just as business owners in the first example have a duty to warn customers of unsafe conditions or remedy them within a reasonable time frame, City Ballet also as a duty (to Alex, and perhaps to society as a whole?) to report or take measures to remedy inappropriate or illegal behavior that it knows about. If the foreseeability of harm exists in their knowledge--as might be the case with abuse of drugs and alcohol or abuse and mistreatment of women--could we say that the breach of that duty is allowing those abuses to continue unchecked or even not checked enough?

The same site gives an example of breach of duty as:

"A dog owner who knows of her dog’s aggressive tendencies towards small children brings her dog to a tee-ball game, where the dog attacks a child."

If City Ballet knows that there is foreseeable harm in the behavior of its employees and fails to report or remedy them, but instead (whether intentionally or unintentionally) normalizes and promotes those behaviors (through literal promotions, or perhaps by hosting parties that provide exacerbating environments among other possible examples), might we consider that a breach of duty?

Or something along those lines? If I can come 50 percent close to a somewhat cogent answer, my hope is that Mr. Merson and his years of experience might be able to reach 100 percent? Or perhaps even you could.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

9 minutes ago, Rock said:

How in the world did Finlay wind up with those pictures and videos? Is he some video wizard hiding cameras, etc.?

Nanny cams are cheap and easy to use. Just type “nanny cam” into the Amazon search bar and you’ll find over a dozen to choose from, including one that looks like a clock radio. 

I’m not saying Finlay set up a nanny cam, just that one doesn’t have to be a an AV wizard to film someone on the sly.

[FPF]

10 minutes ago, Rock said:

I'm not implying Finlay is innocent. What I'm saying is we don't know exactly what happened here. How in the world did Finlay wind up with those pictures and videos? Is he some video wizard hiding cameras, etc.? It might be possible she knew they were being filmed, but never thought outsiders would see it. We've heard from a lawyer basically - a "complaint". We already know some of it is inaccurate so one wonders what else might not be correct in that document. All I'm suggesting is holding off on judgement until there's more information. 

Even if she allowed him to take pictures/film (which she denies), the dissemination of these without her permission would be criminal. When you say "How in the world did Finlay wind up with those pictures and videos?" are you seriously thinking that he did not take them himself? Nowadays most people have smartphones with the capability of taking photos and videos. I don't think this requires any special wizardry. And, as Kathleen says, there are nanny-cams. 

I think his resignation without even responding to NYCB speaks volumes about his culpability. But the court will judge him. 

[Drew]

On 9/8/2018 at 6:18 PM, On Pointe said:

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? 

I agree with several posters above that the issue is not only whether the leadership of NYCB knew exactly what Finlay was doing to Waterbury at exactly the time he was doing it and how etc. etc.--but whether they enabled a situation in which a pattern of this kind of mistreatment generally could and did take place...and might indeed reasonably have been anticipated as likely to take place. Again, I'm not a lawyer and not a judge: I don't know legally exactly how these liabilities work. (Several posts have appeared since I began typing arguing just these kinds of legal issues.) 

I'm also not Solomon so I can't say I have an exact sense of how to think about moral responsibility and other issues raised by this case that may be other than legal. Of course there is a limit to what the company can be responsible for...But the issues raised by the complaint do seem to me to need to be framed at least a little more broadly than the way they are in the question I quoted.  And perhaps one doesn't need to be Solomon to wonder about what it's like for many women in the employ of New York City Ballet after reading Waterbury's complaint. (Women in particular in the wake of this complaint; but one wonders about vulnerable men as well.)

All the same, I'll add that since Waterbury herself wasn't a member of the company and these activities are said to have been taking place on company premises, it's actually not altogether farfetched to imagine company members/employees knowing things about Finlay's activities regarding her specifically--and certainly his activities in the past--that she didn't. Anyway, as Rock notes,  the complaint is just that, a complaint. If the case against the company goes ahead and the company doesn't settle at that point, then I assume there will be depositions etc. and we may then find out how justified Waterbury and her lawyers are in thinking NYCB bears some responsibility for the situation involving three of their principal male dancers (according to both the complaint and the company's own investigation) plus other company employees and a donor according to the complaint.

Two other thoughts as I have been reading this thread: 

The idea that because someone is going to classes and/or holding down a job they aren't suffering mental health problems is a little hard for me to respond to on a public message board -- anyone who has dealt with such problems or knows people who have (friends, family, colleagues etc.) has almost certainly had experience to the contrary. The smiling excellent student who is, in fact, suicidal; the model employee who is going broke paying psychiatrist bills -- these aren't figures of fantasy. I very much HOPE Waterbury's problems aren't that serious...she doesn't have to be on the verge of complete incapacity for me to feel that if the wrongs alleged were done to her, she is well within her rights to seek legal remedies including financial ones.

 

Edited September 15, 2018 by Drew
typo

[FPF]

1 minute ago, Drew said:

I

The idea that because someone is going to classes and/or holding down a job they aren't suffering mental health problems is a little hard for me to respond to on a public message board -- anyone who has dealt with such problems or knows people who have (friends, family, colleagues etc.) has almost certainly had experience to the contrary. The smiling excellent student who is, in fact, suicidal; the model employee who is going broke paying psychiatrist bills -- these aren't figures of fantasy. I very much HOPE Waterbury's problems aren't that serious...she doesn't have to be on the verge of complete incapacity for me to feel that if the wrongs alleged were done to her, she is well within her rights to seek legal remedies including financial ones.

As a very recent example of this, I believe that Peter Frame was described as in seemingly excellent spirits not long before he committed suicide.

[On Pointe]

"Alex's relationship with the company has no bearing on her standing to bring forth a case against City Ballet."

In the complaint,  Ms. Waterbury claims to have been a "former student at New York City Ballet,  Inc."  As this was not true,  it's unclear why this detail was included.  Perhaps to suggest a relationship  with the company that did not exist?

"Paragraph 65 of the complaint alleges that "The sharing of naked and explicit images of female ballet dancers, including Ms. Waterbury, amongst male ballet dancers occurred *exclusively* at NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC" (emphasis added)."

There is no way that the complainant could know that.  There are hundreds of ballet companies in the world.  At any rate,  it's irrelevant.

"Being aware or not aware of explicit photographs being taken of you is a separate issue from having those images distributed without your consent. Even if someone willingly gives nude pictures of themselves to someone else (which was not the case here), it is still a violation of administrative code 10-177 to distribute those images without permission."

All true.  Best not to put oneself in a vulnerable position in the first place.  Ms. Waterbury is likely aware of the many cases of nude photos taken without permission that have ended up on the internet.  If your boyfriend is "into" taking such photos,  and continually bugs you to pose,  it's a pretty good clue that he's not the one for you.

"Moreover, just because she is back on campus and back in classes does not mean she is not suffering the effects of these men's actions. Physically being in class does not mean you are able to concentrate on what is happening. I can attest to this personally because I have no idea what happened in my classes after I read about what happened to her. Being able to go to class also doesn't mean that you don't leave those classes crying."

It's not my wish to cause you or her untoward distress.  I simply disagree with the theory of her case.  Should the case go to trial,  there will likely be others who share my viewpoint.

[fondoffouettes]

 

[Drew]

37 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

"Alex's relationship with the company has no bearing on her standing to bring forth a case against City Ballet."

In the complaint,  Ms. Waterbury claims to have been a "former student at New York City Ballet,  Inc."  As this was not true,  it's unclear why this detail was included.  Perhaps to suggest a relationship  with the company that did not exist?

 

"Being aware or not aware of explicit photographs being taken of you is a separate issue from having those images distributed without your consent. Even if someone willingly gives nude pictures of themselves to someone else (which was not the case here), it is still a violation of administrative code 10-177 to distribute those images without permission."

All true.  Best not to put oneself in a vulnerable position in the first place.  Ms. Waterbury is likely aware of the many cases of nude photos taken without permission that have ended up on the internet.  If your boyfriend is "into" taking such photos,  and continually bugs you to pose,  it's a pretty good clue that he's not the one for you.

 

Someone posted above that SAB is part of the legal entity "New York City Ballet Inc." -- is that not so? I'm afraid I was not able to track this down. [Edited to add that FPF confirmed that this is the case below.]

(Certainly the School of American Ballet can reasonably be described as the company school. It's not as if there is no relation between the two institutions. If someone tried to argue that in front of a jury then they would have to explain why the institutions  share a single director, and even now the plans are to hire one director for both entities.)

I think it is very harsh to blame Waterbury for not being savvy enough or shrewd enough or strong enough to refuse all photos. As if she therefore somehow deserved that those photos went public.

And, if I were a juror in this case, then I would not consider the ten-year age difference between Finlay and Waterbury, the fact that she was 19-20 when this was happening, and the fact that she had been a student at the school of the company where he was a principal dancer, a non-issue in the psychology of the situation. But even if you convinced me it was a non issue and even if she had enthusiastically agreed to pose for him (as she says she did not), still SHE didn't commit a crime or do anything heinous to her romantic partner--according to her complaint at least, HE did. And there are laws against what he did.

Yes, Finlay, too has a right to his day in court, or at any rate, a right to make his case to the public, but while I want to be fair I must admit that I can't help but agree with those who have said that that his swift resignation doesn't suggest he felt he had a strong case to make to his employer.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Drew

[Balletwannabe]

6 minutes ago, fondoffouettes said:

 

Finally.  Thank you Bouder.

[cinnamonswirl]

4 hours ago, MintyLee said:

If City Ballet knows that there is foreseeable harm in the behavior of its employees and fails to report or remedy them, but instead (whether intentionally or unintentionally) normalizes and promotes those behaviors (through literal promotions, or perhaps by hosting parties that provide exacerbating environments among other possible examples), might we consider that a breach of duty?

Yes, if  Waterbury can show foreseeability, then she's a good ways towards showing duty. However, foreseeability is a very squishy area -- in law school, you probably spend about 1/4 of the semester going over it in torts. How likely does something have to be to be foreseeable to the reasonable person? (Reasonable person is the general legal standard in torts.)

While I am skeptical about the viability of Waterbury's claims against NYCB based on the facts thus far, I am not trying to say that what she is alleging didn't happen. Rather, I am pointing out (maybe inarticulately) that all of these repulsive things may be true, but NYCB isn't necessarily civilly liable to her for them. That sounds harsh, but I am approaching this the same way the judge will -- as a dispassionate, objective observer. And of course, even if NYCB isn't liable, that doesn't mean the company doesn't need to take a cold hard look at how it operates and make some big changes.

 

[aurora]

22 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

All true.  Best not to put oneself in a vulnerable position in the first place.  Ms. Waterbury is likely aware of the many cases of nude photos taken without permission that have ended up on the internet.  If your boyfriend is "into" taking such photos,  and continually bugs you to pose,  it's a pretty good clue that he's not the one for you.

 

You have just blithely implied that a massive portion of the (younger, but not exclusively young) female population are idiots basically deserving of whatever comes to them (not in those words).

I don't think that is fair.

It might be "best not to put oneself in a vulnerable position in the first place" but a relationship is based on trusting another person. That trust should not be betrayed in such a way. In any case, in this case it is clearly maintained she did not agree to the naked photos and sex videos. So your insinuation that she is to blame is moot.

 

 

[MintyLee]

6 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Its so nice to have so many style and color choices on this site! I respectfully submit my thoughts for this round in pink

"Alex's relationship with the company has no bearing on her standing to bring forth a case against City Ballet."

In the complaint,  Ms. Waterbury claims to have been a "former student at New York City Ballet,  Inc."  As this was not true,  it's unclear why this detail was included.  Perhaps to suggest a relationship  with the company that did not exist?

I think one difficulty in interpreting this complaint is that it is bit of a game of telephone. Most of us first saw this story through media outlets, which had some inaccuracies compared to the original complaint. The original complaint also has some inaccuracies compared to itself. In regard to your specific question though, I would say that Alex did not write the complaint herself, but that her lawyer did. Although Alex knows where she went to school, Mr. Merson seems to have sometimes been confused by SAB's relatonship to City Ballet as its official school. Or perhaps he knows more than I do, and it is the case that both SAB and NYCB are jointly under the umbrella of some larger corporate entity known as New York City Ballet, Inc.  But whatever the case may be, I do not think it was Alex's intent to imply a closer connection to City Ballet by saying she was a student there. No such school exists, and the relationship between NYCB and its official school SAB is close enough that one would think it unnecessary to essay that much inventiveness.  

"Paragraph 65 of the complaint alleges that "The sharing of naked and explicit images of female ballet dancers, including Ms. Waterbury, amongst male ballet dancers occurred *exclusively* at NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC" (emphasis added)."

There is no way that the complainant could know that.  There are hundreds of ballet companies in the world.  At any rate,  it's irrelevant.

In context, I think "exclusively" here doesn't mean that it is the ONLY place naked pictures of ballerinas are exchanged (I agree with you, no one would know that, and I'm sure it's not the case), BUT rather that in this specific case with these specific people, the only time pictures were sent was exclusively on the premises of NYCB (the "at" here meaning actual physical location, i.e. Koch or Rose)

"Being aware or not aware of explicit photographs being taken of you is a separate issue from having those images distributed without your consent. Even if someone willingly gives nude pictures of themselves to someone else (which was not the case here), it is still a violation of administrative code 10-177 to distribute those images without permission."

All true.  Best not to put oneself in a vulnerable position in the first place.  Ms. Waterbury is likely aware of the many cases of nude photos taken without permission that have ended up on the internet.  If your boyfriend is "into" taking such photos,  and continually bugs you to pose,  it's a pretty good clue that he's not the one for you.

I'm not sure I've ever met anyone who hasn't made mistake when it comes to someone they love, or think they love. It is hard for me to assign responsibility to anyone in Alex's situation. Just because your partner says he wants to do something and you tell him not to, I don't think you are responsible if he does. There are likely many reasons someone in Alex's position should have left her boyfriend. But the fact that she didn't--I don't think that makes her at fault for his actions. Which I don't think you do either.

"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."

I appreciate your sentiment, and I assure you my thoughts are offered happily and in a spirit of conversation and healthy debate. I do admit, it is often a struggle to conceptualize these things without an emotional response, but on the pure logic of the case, I do believe a pattern of negligence on the part of the company can be presented. Hopefully Mr. Merson is better at this than I am.

 

 

[FPF]

From Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=5507480

"New York City Ballet, Inc. operates as a dance company in New York. It operates a choreographic institute that promotes the development of choreographers and dancers involved in classical choreography by providing opportunities to develop their talents. The company also operates a ballet school. In addition, it retails apparel, souvenirs, media products, and vintage products online. New York City Ballet, Inc. was founded in 1948 and is based in New York, New York."

Thus, it seems that a student at SAB is, in fact, a student at New York City Ballet, Inc.

[Karina]

3 minutes ago, MintyLee said:

In context, I think "exclusively" here doesn't mean that it is the ONLY place naked pictures of ballerinas are exchanged (I agree with you, no one would know that, and I'm sure it's not the case), BUT rather that in this specific case with these specific people, the only time pictures were sent was exclusively on the premises of NYCB (the "at" here meaning actual physical location, i.e. Koch or Rose)

 

In her interview on ABC she said her videos were shared with at least 9 other men.

[MintyLee]

56 minutes ago, Drew said:

While still drafting this post, I read Mintylee's post regarding codes of contact: if that's accurate--that there is no formal code of conduct and no guidance/orientation for new employees at NYCB many of whom are college aged and occasionally younger--well....maybe the company might want to look into that, especially in the wake of these events??  I understand a ballet company is different from other kinds of places of employment--but it's still a place of employment.  (If it turns out that is not accurate then maybe the company would want to say something about its codes and expectations of dancers in public statements like the one they issued in response to the Waterbury case.)

 

From your keyboard to Kathy Brown's ears! (Or Charles Scharf or Jon Stafford or the ghost of Balanchine himself--whoever we think is steering the ship over there.)

[On Pointe]

17 minutes ago, aurora said:

You have just blithely implied that a massive portion of the (younger, but not exclusively young) female population are idiots basically deserving of whatever comes to them (not in those words).

I don't think that is fair.

It might be "best not to put oneself in a vulnerable position in the first place" but a relationship is based on trusting another person. That trust should not be betrayed in such a way. In any case, in this case it is clearly maintained she did not agree to the naked photos and sex videos. So your insinuation that she is to blame is moot.

 

 

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

[BalanchineFan]

2 hours ago, Balletwannabe said:

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.  

Thanks. I misunderstood, but I think I get your point now. 

[MintyLee]

3 hours ago, cinnamonswirl said:

Yes, if  Waterbury can show foreseeability, then she's a good ways towards showing duty. However, foreseeability is a very squishy area -- in law school, you probably spend about 1/4 of the semester going over it in torts. How likely does something have to be to be foreseeable to the reasonable person? (Reasonable person is the general legal standard in torts.)

While I am skeptical about the viability of Waterbury's claims against NYCB based on the facts thus far, I am not trying to say that what she is alleging didn't happen. Rather, I am pointing out (maybe inarticulately) that all of these repulsive things may be true, but NYCB isn't necessarily civilly liable to her for them. That sounds harsh, but I am approaching this the same way the judge will -- as a dispassionate, objective observer. And of course, even if NYCB isn't liable, that doesn't mean the company doesn't need to take a cold hard look at how it operates and make some big changes.

 

I feel like I am getting a lot of free law school education here  

Would repeated patterns be indicative of foreseeability? Disciplinary records from SAB plus a few run-ins with the law elsewhere?

And don't worry--I did not interpret any of your responses as denying what Alex alleges happened--I think you a clear that you are questioning whether NYCB is liable. I too am unsure whether the argument has a leg to stand on when it comes to a judge or a trial. But I lean (leg pun intended) more toward City Ballet's liability than not. As more evidence comes out, perhaps things will more obviously tilt in that direction.

[nanushka]

2 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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

I fail to see how any of this is at all relevant to the question of whether Finlay is liable for the harm he allegedly caused her — not to mention to the question of whether he may in fact have broken the law in the act of causing her that harm.

[MarzipanShepherdess]

The victim-blaming in this thread is getting insane, with all these statements about how Waterbury knew Finlay had “a kink” and insinuating that Waterbury got what was coming to her for not having broken up with him after he asked her to pose nude.

This is the same reasoning that is used to say that rape victims who wore sexy clothing or walked home alone at night were “asking for it”. No one deserves to have their consent violated! 

I understand that NYCB is a beloved institution that some feel is not culpable in these events, but it is perfectly possible to disagree with Waterbury’s suit against NYCB without descending to statements that imply abuse victims are complicit in their own abuse because they should have known better.