Jump to content
abatt

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

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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...

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, MintyLee said:

My apologies, Helene--I didn't understand that aspect of the site policy.

The official news policy is quite clear, is located here (scroll), and agreeing to the T&C's and site policies was required when you became a member:

https://balletalert.invisionzone.com/topic/34250-rules-rules-and-our-mission/

45 minutes ago, MintyLee said:

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

If these are available to the public on a website that anyone can access without specific permissions, linking to them would be much appreciated, since there have been many requests over the years to know what the NYCB contract states.

45 minutes ago, MintyLee said:

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 :)?

He has not claimed there is a code of conduct, but instead referred to conduct norms and that the named dancers violated them.   Unless there is a legal reason that NYCB must substantiate this claim and/or make the conduct norms public, or address whether there is a code of conduct that's been communicated to Company employees, NYCB is under no obligation to do so.  And until anyone can prove that they don't exist through official news, there's no reason to correct his statement.

31 minutes ago, MintyLee said:

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.

The complaint states that these three dancers committed crimes.  The State has not charged any of them with anything, and may never do so.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Helene said:

If these are available to the public on a website that anyone can access without specific permissions, linking to them would be much appreciated, since there have been many requests over the years to know what the NYCB contract states.

He has not claimed there is a code of conduct, but instead referred to conduct norms and that the named dancers violated them.   Unless there is a legal reason that NYCB must substantiate this claim and/or make the conduct norms public, NYCB is under no obligation to do so.  And until anyone can prove that they don't exist through official news, there's no reason to correct his statement.

They used to be available as .pdfs on AGMA's website for every company whose dancers they represented. Unfortunately, if you go to AGMA's website now, there are instructions for how to access them by clicking a "plus sign icon" next to the company name, but none are listed, and no "plus sign icons" appear. It could be that the site is being updated or that there is some formatting error? If someone else can navigate this better than I can, perhaps he or she could find them: https://www.musicalartists.org/contracts-and-agreements/contracts/dance/

And my apologies again--you are correct that Mr. Scharf writes that they "violated the Company's norms of conduct."

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MintyLee said:

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

She already has voiced her opinion on the total matter.

 

Share this post


Link to post

There is one issue that has not been addressed which could leave potentially vulnerable in the case or at the very least open up an IT headache that they probably never thought the need to deal with.

Even if personal devices were used by the men in Waterbury's case, there is the possibility that company email addresses, WI-FI, and servers were used.  The company then becomes, probably unknowingly, the provider of the distribution method of harmful messages and photos.  I believe it has been established in cases involving businesses and government that there is no expectation of privacy if your material is routed through your employer's computer servers.  The company code of conduct should contain a section on cyber-behavior (but even if the document is up to date, who reads the fine print?).  I think we can agree that sending naked pictures of your girlfriend through the company internet servers is worse behavior than taking home a pad of little yellow sticky notes. The company resources have been misused in a way that harms employees and their personal associates and damages the company image as a desirable place to work for future employees, or an institution worthy of financial support from ticket sales and donations.

The men named in the case have harmed both the company and the women in a manner that deserves more than a slap on the wrist.  Whether the situation is resolved through civil and/or criminal litigation is up to the lawyers and the district attorney's office.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I'm not allowed to sleep at night if I want to keep up on this thread...

I was happy Bouder said something because she has always positioned herself as a leader.  Often it's easy to be that leader, her posts are largerly supported, they encourage, and inspire people.  This post?  Difficult...very controversial...possible ramifications for her work environment.  Do her colleagues agree with her?  Maybe, maybe not.  So for me, it's not that I was looking to her for an "answer", I was looking to her as the leader that she is.  And she continues to blow me away in her strength and resolve, regardless of whether or not I always agree with her. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, cinnamonswirl said:

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.)

Would someone explain what IIED and NIED are? I’ve read the complaint but I’m not a lawyer or a law student. 

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Balletwannabe said:

I guess I'm not allowed to sleep at night if I want to keep up on this thread...

I was happy Bouder said something because she has always positioned herself as a leader.  Often it's easy to be that leader, her posts are largerly supported, they encourage, and inspire people.  This post?  Difficult...very controversial...possible ramifications for her work environment.  Do her colleagues agree with her?  Maybe, maybe not.  So for me, it's not that I was looking to her for an "answer", I was looking to her as the leader that she is.  And she continues to blow me away in her strength and resolve, regardless of whether or not I always agree with her. 

 Bouder’s IG post bolsters NYCB’s claim that they did not “condone, encourage” etc the reprehensible behavior in question. It supports the company line and, imo, may have been vetted by NYCB.

I was glad to see her condemn the illegal behaviors. How is it controversial?

Edited by BalanchineFan
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, BalanchineFan said:

 Bouder’s IG post bolsters NYCB’s claim that they did not “condone, encourage” etc the reprehensible behavior in question. It supports the company line and, imo, may have been vetted by NYCB.

I was glad to see it. How is it controversial?

She is admitting she believes the men are guilty ("this behavior was carried out...allowed to fester").  She is supporting Waterbury ("my heart goes out to the women...")- the woman who is suing the company she works for!  She referred to a "leaderless state", as someone mentioned, throwing the interim team under the bus.  I think there's plenty there to create controversy.  If it stays up with zero likes or comments from her colleagues; that says something.  I'm not saying she has no support, but I highly doubt this was vetted by anyone.  

Edited by Balletwannabe

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, BalanchineFan said:

 Bouder’s IG post bolsters NYCB’s claim that they did not “condone, encourage” etc the reprehensible behavior in question. It supports the company line and, imo, may have been vetted by NYCB.

I was glad to see it. How is it controversial?

Ashley states  “I do not condone this behavior”. To me this is her personal statement and she is saying this as a member of NYCB, but not speaking for the organization. 

There is a world of difference between “condone” and “encourage”. I don’t believe there has been any mention of this reprehensible behavior being encouraged. Please point out if I’ve missed that.

NYCB is not, in fact, leaderless. There is an executive director. Other than her signature on the recent email, along with Jon Stafford, where is Kathy brown? 

As I reread what I’ve written, I want to state in the clearest possible way my unwavering support and admiration to Ashley in making this statement. If she so chooses she will run a company some day, or should. 

Edited by rkoretzky

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
10 hours ago, fondoffouettes said:

I don't understand Bouder's "it was allowed to fester..." comment. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, rkoretzky said:

Ashley states  “I do not condone this behavior”. To me this is her personal statement and she is saying this as a member of NYCB, but not speaking for the organization. 

There is a world of difference between “condone” and “encourage”. I don’t believe there has been any mention of this reprehensible behavior being encouraged. Please point out if I’ve missed that.

NYCB is not, in fact, leaderless. There is an executive director. Other than her signature on the recent email, along with Jon Stafford, where is Kathy brown? 

"It was allowed to fester in our current leaderless state."  Leaderless?  Does she/do we actually believe Finlay's behavior would be different had Martins still been at the helm?  Is that what she is implying?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
8 minutes ago, Balletwannabe said:

She is admitting she believes the men are guilty ("this behavior was carried out...allowed to fester").  She is supporting Waterbury ("my heart goes out to the women...")- the woman who is suing the company she works for!  She referred to a "leaderless state", as someone mentioned, throwing the interim team under the bus.  I think there's plenty there to create controversy.  If it stays up with zero likes or comments from her colleagues; that says something.  I'm not saying she has no support, but I highly doubt this was vetted by anyone.  

Thank you. In my work place the fester/leaderless comment would have me in our HR office on Monday morning. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, its the mom said:

"It was allowed to fester in our current leaderless state."  Leaderless?  Does she/do we actually believe Finlay's behavior would be different had Martins still been at the helm?  Is that what she is implying?

Ashley Bouder is implying that the culture of sexual harassment definitely exists at NYCB, as Waterbury claims.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Rick said:

Ashley Bouder is implying that the culture of sexual harassment definitely exists at NYCB, as Waterbury claims.

And she is implying that it festered in the absence of Martins.  Should we assume that Finlay would not have acted in this manner had Martins still been in charge?   Sorry, I don't buy that.  

Share this post


Link to post

NYCB is not leaderless as some would like to believe.  This has got to be one of the most difficult instances of "on the job training" for the interim team.  We should be supporting the team in their efforts to not only keep the company running as smoothly as possible but to stear it in the right direction for the future.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, its the mom said:

And she is implying that it festered in the absence of Martins.  Should we assume that Finlay would not have acted in this manner had Martins still been in charge?   Sorry, I don't buy that.  

Neither did the one NYCB dancer who responded. At least from the way I read their comment.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, its the mom said:

"It was allowed to fester in our current leaderless state."  Leaderless?  Does she/do we actually believe Finlay's behavior would be different had Martins still been at the helm?  Is that what she is implying?

Although I won’t speak for her, I don’t think that is what she’s saying. Again it’s a word choice. “Fester” says to me that it’s inculcated within the organization and has exploded under current conditions. 

Again, why isn’t the executive director stepping up? 

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, rkoretzky said:

Ashley states  “I do not condone this behavior”. To me this is her personal statement and she is saying this as a member of NYCB, but not speaking for the organization. 

There is a world of difference between “condone” and “encourage”. I don’t believe there has been any mention of this reprehensible behavior being encouraged. Please point out if I’ve missed that.

NYCB is not, in fact, leaderless. There is an executive director. Other than her signature on the recent email, along with Jon Stafford, where is Kathy brown? 

As I reread what I’ve written, I want to state in the clearest possible way my unwavering support and admiration to Ashley in making this statement. If she so chooses she will run a company some day, or should. 

The language “condoned, encouraged, fostered, and permitted” is from the Waterbury complaint. 

“ for several years the defendant NYCB Inc. has condoned, encouraged, fostered and permitted an environment where its agents, servants, employees, donors, principals and/or others affiliated with it abused, degraded and mistreated alcohol, drugs and women.”

The entire situation is controversial but in posting, Bouder backs up the company’s position that NYCB should be excluded from the complaint, imo. That was why I didn’t understand why the post itself was controversial.

Reading the responses here I’m getting a fuller picture of the implications. Thank you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
24 minutes ago, rkoretzky said:

Although I won’t speak for her, I don’t think that is what she’s saying. Again it’s a word choice. “Fester” says to me that it’s inculcated within the organization and has exploded under current conditions. 

Again, why isn’t the executive director stepping up? 

Having been involved in an investigation of an employee I can tell you the legal department had to review and vett every single I that was dotted and T that was crossed. It was excruciating for those of us who felt the situation was so cut and dry and statements from the company were minimal. 

34 minutes ago, aurora said:

Neither did the one NYCB dancer who responded. At least from the way I read their comment.

A number of comments on that post are mind boggling to say the least. 

Share this post


Link to post

Who should be the official spokesperson for the company? Scharf? Jon Stafford? 

I suggest that is the responsibility of the executive director. 

My career has been in the education world—public schools and libraries. I have no experience working in an organization of this size or scope. So I really don’t know. 

Re Bella’s comment: yes, I agree that the interim team deserves our full support. They have done a remarkable job under circumstances they couldn’t possibly have anticipated. But I’m one who wishes the search process had gotten underway much more quickly. And frankly I don’t understand why it didn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, lmspear said:

There is one issue that has not been addressed which could leave potentially vulnerable in the case or at the very least open up an IT headache that they probably never thought the need to deal with.

Even if personal devices were used by the men in Waterbury's case, there is the possibility that company email addresses, WI-FI, and servers were used.  The company then becomes, probably unknowingly, the provider of the distribution method of harmful messages and photos.  I believe it has been established in cases involving businesses and government that there is no expectation of privacy if your material is routed through your employer's computer servers.  The company code of conduct should contain a section on cyber-behavior (but even if the document is up to date, who reads the fine print?).  I think we can agree that sending naked pictures of your girlfriend through the company internet servers is worse behavior than taking home a pad of little yellow sticky notes. The company resources have been misused in a way that harms employees and their personal associates and damages the company image as a desirable place to work for future employees, or an institution worthy of financial support from ticket sales and donations.

The men named in the case have harmed both the company and the women in a manner that deserves more than a slap on the wrist.  Whether the situation is resolved through civil and/or criminal litigation is up to the lawyers and the district attorney's office.

I think that this issue was raised briefly a few hundred posts back on this thread, before we knew the nature of the "unprofessional communications." You have an interesting point here, which suggests that the company would perhaps have a legal case against the suspended/resigned dancers. Would it be considered negligent of the company to allow its servers, etc. to have been used in this way for ~6 months?

 

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×