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

[MintyLee]

35 minutes ago, FPF said:

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.

Ah thank you for this! I tried to look this up through wikipedia lol, but perhaps this is why my professors advise against it!

[nanushka]

1 hour ago, sappho said:

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.

This. 100%. Thank you for this clarity.

[On Pointe]

8 minutes ago, nanushka said:

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.

Of course Finlay is liable for harm he caused to Ms. Waterbury!  That is not in dispute,  at least not to me.  The question is whether or not the NYCB bears legal responsibility for his actions.

[nanushka]

Just now, On Pointe said:

Of course Finlay is liable for harm he caused to Ms. Waterbury!  That is not in dispute,  at least not to me.  The question is whether or not the NYCB bears legal responsibility for his actions.

I didn’t understand your point because you were talking only about what Waterbury knew and did, or should have known and did — not about what NYCB knew and did, or should have known and did. That’s why, to me, your comments have come across as victim-blaming.

[MintyLee]

10 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.

As someone who has become rather jaded by men, I personally agree with your comment that "many men cannot be trusted," but I have to admit I would be saddened to have to send my daughter out into the world every day with that parting thought. 

Your suggestion that no friend or parent warned her that dating Chase might not be a good idea possibly takes for granted how stubborn a headstrong young woman can be (some, not all), but I do agree and struggle with the thought that the people in her life could have done more to protect her from someone with that reputation. We have a responsibility to protect young women who might be more impressionable at that age than we are at ours. Might you also agree then that others also might have had responsibility in protecting her from someone with that reputation? Perhaps responsible parties that knew more concrete, everyday details of his actions? Perhaps responsible parties that might have more in their arsenal of course-correcting remedies than late night texts and sad-faced emojis? Perhaps... an employer? 

[Marta]

26 minutes ago, MarzipanShepherdess said:

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. 

Enthusiastically agree.  As Nanushka  said above, I also fail to see the relevance of many of these comments to Waterbury's specific complaint against Finlay.

[Marta]

MintyLee said:

Your suggestion that no friend or parent warned her that dating Chase might not be a good idea possibly takes for granted how stubborn a headstrong young woman can be (some, not all), but I do agree and struggle with the thought that the people in her life could have done more to protect her from someone with that reputation. We have a responsibility to protect young women who might be more impressionable at that age than we are at ours. Might you also agree then that others also might have had responsibility in protecting her from someone with that reputation? Perhaps responsible parties that knew more concrete, everyday details of his actions? Perhaps responsible parties that might have more in their arsenal of course-correcting remedies than late night texts and sad-faced emojis? Perhaps... an employer? 

Well, they didn't warn her, or she didn't listen. Or the friend or parent didn't know more than she did. Why would "responsible parties" know more concrete details of Finlay's actions?  It's not as if his actions were common knowledge among non dancers.

[cinnamonswirl]

41 minutes ago, MintyLee said:

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

Depends on what the pattern was. Example: is it foreseeable to a reasonable person that someone who was habitually drunk at rehearsal and then got in a car to drive home would get into a car accident? Yes. Is it foreseeable that someone who was habitually drunk at rehearsal would surreptitiously take and disseminate nude photos? The answer to that is less obvious to me.

Some people have mentioned what Waterbury may learn in discovery. I expect NYCB's lawyers will immediately move to dismiss the complaint, as regards NYCB, for failure to state a claim (or the New York state law equivalent). If that motion is granted, NYCB is out of the case and there will be no discovery as to NYCB.

Edited September 9, 2018 by cinnamonswirl

[MintyLee]

2 hours ago, fondoffouettes said:

 

I have seen many people ask about why Ashley Bouder hadn't posted anything regarding these allegations. While I understand why we would expect her to share her thoughts given her Ashley Bouder Project's mission to empower women in ballet, I am troubled by the assumption our society seems to have that it is the job of the women to come up with the answers whenever a man makes a mistake.

But having said that, I wish Ashley had offered some answers. Especially given her 18 years with the New York City Ballet and her arrival as an apprentice at an age younger than any one else currently in the company, I think her perspective on what protections could be improved upon for the women at City Ballet would be profound. Especially for the young women.

As all of this chaos was erupting around her, I found it heartening that she instead chose to feature her daughter on her IG up until now. It is so refreshing to see a dancer who knows she is more than just a dancer. And there is something about seeing Ashley's love for Violet in bursts and snippets through her camera lens that is so uplifting and soul-lightening that I will admit to replaying those stories more than once. But I can't help but wonder if Ashley would want Violet to be exposed to some of the things she herself was exposed to at the age she encountered them. Ashley is one of the strongest people I've ever met--hands down, emotionally and physically. The things she had to endure to get to where she is today are far beyond what I could have faced, and far beyond what I think any of us would want our children to face. If Violet were an apprentice in the company (which she very well may be one day), how would Ashley want to protect her from some of the dangers or obstacles she might encounter? And I don't just mean this specific instance--I pray to God nothing resembling this ever happens to Violet. But what about the other hardships facing young female dancers? How could Violet be given safe avenues to report harassment or abuse without repercussions? What can the company do to make her feel safe enough to report something even if those avenues existed? What negative elements of the culture would have to be changed in order to allow for that to happen? Is there a way to keep her from feeling dispensable and replaceable in comparison to the men she works with? Or from feeling that her opinion isn't valuable and her voice isn't heard because she is a woman in a company run by men? Are there better emotional and mental supports that could be provided for her when she is 17 with a full-time job, an 80-hour work week, little education on how to manage her money, trying to balance a college class and a boyfriend, friends, and family with the demands of her dream job and the limitations of her body? What safeguards can be put in place to ensure the interactions between donor and dancer is polite and appropriate? What fallbacks should be in place when they are not? How might the school and the company educate her on the dangers of substance abuse, something that rising stars are seemingly especially susceptible to? Is there any way to teach her healthy body image and healthy eating habits that is in line with the inherent artistic needs of a world-class ballet company? Is there any way to encourage healthy romantic relationships within the company where the imbalance in the power dynamic does not put her at a disadvantage? Perhaps this is overstepping the authority of a ballet company, but one can dream. If only every school and every company could think of its students and employees like a mother would her daughter...

But perhaps it is unfair of us to ask Ashley to present something that could be seen as critical of the institution she has called home for nearly two decades, especially while it is reeling from so much negative media attention. And perhaps it would be hurtful to those people she grew up with in the school who have an international spotlight shining on them for accusations that haven't been definitively proven in court. Or perhaps she is saving her answers for when she becomes the new AD.

Edited September 9, 2018 by MintyLee
typos, grammar, elaboration

[rkoretzky]

I was at the Saturday matinee at SPAC when Chase made his debut performance in Apollo. He was promoted on the spot. 

It was a stunner. He captured the arc with great clarity. I will never forget it. 

Unfortunately injuries intervened and I never saw him rise to that level again. 

[MintyLee]

33 minutes ago, Marta said:

MintyLee said:

Your suggestion that no friend or parent warned her that dating Chase might not be a good idea possibly takes for granted how stubborn a headstrong young woman can be (some, not all), but I do agree and struggle with the thought that the people in her life could have done more to protect her from someone with that reputation. We have a responsibility to protect young women who might be more impressionable at that age than we are at ours. Might you also agree then that others also might have had responsibility in protecting her from someone with that reputation? Perhaps responsible parties that knew more concrete, everyday details of his actions? Perhaps responsible parties that might have more in their arsenal of course-correcting remedies than late night texts and sad-faced emojis? Perhaps... an employer? 

Well, they didn't warn her, or she didn't listen. Or the friend or parent didn't know more than she did. Why would "responsible parties" know more concrete details of Finlay's actions?  It's not as if his actions were common knowledge among non dancers.

Perhaps I was being too coy lol. The company is the responsible party, and according to the complaint, they did know more concrete details of his actions (drinking, partying, damaging hotel rooms, etc.) But even discounting that, I was just trying to extend what On Pointe said to support my argument. If Alex's friends and family had a responsibility to her to protect her and warn her away from Chase, shouldn't his employer, who had just as much, if not more information, share a similar responsibility? Even if not to the same degree, does any responsibility stem from their knowledge of his actions?

[MintyLee]

33 minutes ago, cinnamonswirl said:

Depends on what the pattern was. Example: is it foreseeable to a reasonable person that someone who was habitually drunk at rehearsal and then got in a car to drive home would get into a car accident? Yes. Is it foreseeable that someone who was habitually drunk at rehearsal would surreptitiously take and disseminate nude photos? The answer to that is less obvious to me.

Some people have mentioned what Waterbury may learn in discovery. I expect NYCB's lawyers will immediately move to dismiss the complaint, as regards NYCB, for failure to state a claim (or the New York state law equivalent). If that motion is granted, NYCB is out of the case and there will be no discovery as to NYCB.

Is it foreseeable to a reasonable person that someone who is brought up in an environment that normalizes and fails to effectively check various forms of mistreatment of women would surreptitiously take and disseminate nude photos of young women and trade them like baseball cards?

Can you elaborate on what "failure to state a claim" means? Is it that you think none of the claims in the complaint, such as negligence, are viable?

[On Pointe]

49 minutes ago, MintyLee said:

But even discounting that, I was just trying to extend what On Pointe said to support my argument. If Alex's friends and family had a responsibility to her to protect her and warn her away from Chase, shouldn't his employer, who had just as much, if not more information, share a similar responsibility? Even if not to the same degree, does any responsibility stem from their knowledge of his actions?

Realistically,  how could an employer warn the girlfriend of one of their employees that he might be trouble?  They might not even know he has a girlfriend.  What could they say that wouldn't  be actionable?  "Look out for him because he doesn't  respect women and he might distribute nude photos of you."

[cinnamonswirl]

15 minutes ago, MintyLee said:

Is it foreseeable to a reasonable person that someone who is brought up in an environment that normalizes and fails to effectively check various forms of mistreatment of women would surreptitiously take and disseminate nude photos of young women and trade them like baseball cards?

Can you elaborate on what "failure to state a claim" means? Is it that you think none of the claims in the complaint, such as negligence, are viable?

Failure to state a complain compasses a couple of different concepts. The one I was specifically thinking of is that a complaint needs to allege a cause of action that is recognized by law. If the cause of action isn't recognized by law, then there is no claim. 

This goes back to the discussion that we were having earlier about duty. I'm not convinced the law recognizes a duty of care from NYCB to Waterbury. One does not owe a duty of care to all people at all times. To me, from a legal perspective the link between NYCB and Waterbury is too attenuated to be foreseeable. Of course that's my own personal take, and I may well be wrong.

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is determined solely on the facts alleged in the complaint. This is one reason why a carefully drafted complaint is important. If you omit something from the complaint, even if it's true and it was accidentally omitted, the court cannot consider it.

The court will consider each claim separately. For example, it could dismiss the claims as to NYCB for assault and IIED, but leave the NIED claim intact.

(BTW I am not familiar with NY law. However I would be surprised if NY was very different on these issues from the majoritian view that is taught in law schools and tested on the multi-state on bar exams.)

[MintyLee]

3 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Realistically,  how could an employer warn the girlfriend of one of their employees that he might be trouble?  They might not even know he has a girlfriend.  What could they say that wouldn't  be actionable?  "Look out for him because he doesn't  respect women and he might distribute nude photos of you."

Fair. Can I amend that sentence to read the following? 

If Alex's friends and family had a responsibility to her to protect her from Chase, shouldn't his employer, who had just as much, if not more information, share a similar responsibility? And could that responsibility have been acted upon by appropriately disciplining him when other instances of abuse and mistreatment arose? And if they did not do that, aren't they as blameworthy as Alex's friends and family?

[MintyLee]

9 minutes ago, cinnamonswirl said:

Failure to state a complain compasses a couple of different concepts. The one I was specifically thinking of is that a complaint needs to allege a cause of action that is recognized by law. If the cause of action isn't recognized by law, then there is no claim. 

This goes back to the discussion that we were having earlier about duty. I'm not convinced the law recognizes a duty of care from NYCB to Waterbury. One does not owe a duty of care to all people at all times. To me, from a legal perspective the link between NYCB and Waterbury is too attenuated to be foreseeable. Of course that's my own personal take, and I may well be wrong.

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is determined solely on the facts alleged in the complaint. This is one reason why a carefully drafted complaint is important. If you omit something from the complaint, even if it's true and it was accidentally omitted, the court cannot consider it.

The court will consider each claim separately. For example, it could dismiss the claims as to NYCB for assault and IIED, but leave the NIED claim intact.

(BTW I am not familiar with NY law. However I would be surprised if NY was very different on these issues from the majoritian view that is taught in law schools and tested on the multi-state on bar exams.)

I see. Do you think it is possible to conceive of a duty one might have to all other people to report a crime if one were to believe the culprit might commit the same crime again, or even escalate? Or perhaps not escalate, but continue in doing other crimes? And if so, could that duty by the one NYCB owes to Alex?

If a complaint is dismissed, can it be rewritten and brought back to the court?

Where do I send my tuition check?

[On Pointe]

33 minutes ago, MintyLee said:

Fair. Can I amend that sentence to read the following? 

If Alex's friends and family had a responsibility to her to protect her from Chase, shouldn't his employer, who had just as much, if not more information, share a similar responsibility? And could that responsibility have been acted upon by appropriately disciplining him when other instances of abuse and mistreatment arose? And if they did not do that, aren't they as blameworthy as Alex's friends and family?

Ms. Waterbury's friends and family didn't exactly have a responsibility to protect her.  It would have been kind to perhaps advise her that he might be more than a young girl can handle.  But she was a legal adult,  and on paper,  Finlay looks awfully desirable - good looking  WASPY stage star from an old money Connecticut  family.  She might have been dazzled by attention from him.

Are there other instances of Finlay abusing a woman's trust?

[Helene]

[Admin megaphone back on]

I've removed (I think/I hope) all information about contracts, hiring, codes of contact, etc. which have been posted without links to official sources, as they violate site policy, as insider information that has not been substantiated with public information is against site policy.

Also, do not discuss each other.

[Admin megaphone back off]

 

Way for Bouder to throw the interim team under the bus.

 

[MintyLee]

11 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Ms. Waterbury's friends and family didn't exactly have a responsibility to protect her.  It would have been kind to perhaps advise her that he might be more than a young girl can handle.  But she was a legal adult,  and on paper,  Finlay looks awfully desirable - good looking  WASPY stage star from an old money Connecticut  family.  She might have been dazzled by attention from him.

Are there other instances of Finlay abusing a woman's trust?

I believe if you were to ask his ex-fiancee, she might have an opinion on that matter for one. 

[Helene]

Way for Bouder to throw the interim team under the bus.

25 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Are there other instances of Finlay abusing a woman's trust?

According to the complaint, the communications had photos of women in addition to Waterbury, and at least Findlay and Ramasar were trading images back and forth.  However, the agreement or lack of any between Findlay and any other women whose photos he shared or solicited is not discussed.

Not a specific woman, but since he calls ABT ballerinas on masse sluts, he certainly abused any notion that they should be treated with respect.

 

[MintyLee]

9 minutes ago, Helene said:

[Admin megaphone back on]

I've removed (I think/I hope) all information about contracts, hiring, codes of contact, etc. which have been posted without links to official sources, as they violate site policy, as insider information that has not been substantiated with public information is against site policy.

Also, do not discuss each other.

[Admin megaphone back off]

My apologies, Helene--I didn't understand that aspect of the site policy. I would happily upload City Ballet's dancer agreement and associated addenda so that perhaps some few braves souls might actually read them, but it's probably better I save us all the bandwidth  it's a little far in the weeds from the main point anyway. Thank you for clearing it out.

As regards the discussion of the code of conduct mentioned in Charles Scharf's statements though, my argument was that there isn't one he could point to to substantiate what he was saying. Do you think it would be possible for you to turn the admin megaphone back on and correct his statements too ?

[cinnamonswirl]

16 minutes ago, MintyLee said:

I see. Do you think it is possible to conceive of a duty one might have to all other people to report a crime if one were to believe the culprit might commit the same crime again, or even escalate? Or perhaps not escalate, but continue in doing other crimes? And if so, could that duty by the one NYCB owes to Alex?

If a complaint is dismissed, can it be rewritten and brought back to the court?

Where do I send my tuition check?

Generally, there is no duty to rescue in the United States. If Ann sees Bob committing a tort or crime against Caleb, Ann owes no duty of care to help Caleb, absent a specific relationship between Ann and Caleb that creates a duty of care, or unless Ann created the hazardous situation. I guess Waterbury could argue that NYCB created the hazardous situation with Finlay. But I think that's a real stretch, and her complaint does not appear to lay the groundwork for such an argument, as it alleges that NYCB knew of his behavior, not that it caused the behavior.

I believe no duty to rescue is true even if Ann is aware of a pattern of tortious/criminal behavior by Bob. But I fully admit that we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel on what I remember from torts.

Yes, no duty to rescue feels wrong. I think most people naturally feel that if you know someone is doing something bad, you should report it, especially if you know that person has done it repeatedly, and that not doing so is wrong. This is one instance where torts does not follow natural law, as it were.

There are very specific rules about refiling. As I recall it depends on why the claims were dismissed. Courts are also generally quite liberal with giving leave to amend if a plaintiff has a good reason for needing to beef up the complaint. 

[MintyLee]

5 hours ago, Karina said:

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

Administrative code 10-177 against Chase, Zach, and Amar (page 30). Assault (page 21), battery (page 23), and invasion of privacy (page 36). Although if you mean separate criminal charges in a criminal suit, I would suggest waiting to hear what Cy Vance has to say next week.

[MintyLee]

5 minutes ago, cinnamonswirl said:

Generally, there is no duty to rescue in the United States. If Ann sees Bob committing a tort or crime against Caleb, Ann owes no duty of care to help Caleb, absent a specific relationship between Ann and Caleb that creates a duty of care, or unless Ann created the hazardous situation. I guess Waterbury could argue that NYCB created the hazardous situation with Finlay. But I think that's a real stretch, and her complaint does not appear to lay the groundwork for such an argument, as it alleges that NYCB knew of his behavior, not that it caused the behavior.

I believe no duty to rescue is true even if Ann is aware of a pattern of tortious/criminal behavior by Bob. But I fully admit that we are really scraping the bottom of the barrel on what I remember from torts.

Yes, no duty to rescue feels wrong. I think most people naturally feel that if you know someone is doing something bad, you should report it, especially if you know that person has done it repeatedly, and that not doing so is wrong. This is one instance where torts does not follow natural law, as it were.

There are very specific rules about refiling. As I recall it depends on why the claims were dismissed. Courts are also generally quite liberal with giving leave to amend if a plaintiff has a good reason for needing to beef up the complaint. 

Could one argue that NYCB creates a hazardous situation when it hosts open-bar parties with underage students and employees it suspects of substance abuse problems?

And do you think my idea of duty to rescue comes from watching the finale of Seinfeld where they have the Good Samaritan law?

And I hope Mr. Merson follows Ballet Alert if he needs help amending the complaint...

[MintyLee]

4 hours ago, Karina said:

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

Yes, but I believe what "exclusively" means in the context of the complaint is that the images and videos were only traded between these 9 men while the three men who worked at City Ballet were on the premises of their work place.