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

[Helene]

41 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Right off the bat,  Merson obfuscates by describing her in the complaint as a former "student of the NYCB,  Inc." when she was actually a former student of SAB. 

Bloomberg, a highly reputable source, aligned with what he wrote.  It was quoted upthread.

 

41 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

  It would have required little effort on Merson's part to describe the other Craig Hall as "a former student,  NOT the current ballet master of the same name." 

"Journalistic standards" are the standards to which the press would be held, not a lawyer writing a legal document, where, in this case, his description was correct.  His job is not to feed the press their articles.  If the court finds issues with the document, the court will address them.

There are a couple of issues I see with the responses to the "Dance Magazine" article (emphases mine):

•  Susan Jaffee said, "I don't see any truth to what Ms. Waterbury said in that last sentence in The New York Times article. There are many companies out there with directors who not only care about the vision and success of their company, but also about the well-being and safety of their dancers," but then follows with a critique of NYCB leadership. 
  • Perhaps she meant to say that the last sentence was not universally true and unfairly lumped all companies together, since she acknowledges issues at NYCB.  Also, the idea that a new artistic leader would come in and fix everything is naive.  If you look at the job description, that person will be plenty busy, with exceedingly high expectations all around.  We're not back when Balanchine died, where there was concern about the survival of the institution.
• Marina Harss said, "What does a resolution like the one made by the independent investigator in the Peter Martins case, that the charges could not be corroborated, actually mean?"
  • There was no independent investigation.  There was an internal, third-party investigation defined and paid for by the Board and conducted by a law firm whose job was to assess the company's liability and exposure.  

[dirac]

43 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

The entire theory of Ms. Waterbury's case rests on the premise that NYCB as a corporation is responsible for her exploitation.  Right off the bat,  Merson obfuscates by describing her in the complaint as a former "student of the NYCB,  Inc." when she was actually a former student of SAB.  He describes her as "a nineteen year old ballet dancer"  when she is actually a twenty year old college student and model who does not and apparently never has made a living as a dancer.  It's claimed that Waterbury and Finlay "met at NYCB,  Inc.",  implying that they were work colleagues.  Evidently these inaccuracies worked,  as many media outlets initially reported that "a teen-age ballerina at the NYCB is suing the company",  and only some of them bothered to run a correction.  Merson scored big in the public relations game. 

Journalistic standards are not what they once were.  Even the outlets that ran corrections did not slam Merson for his misstatements.  (In all fairness,  that's not what they are required to do.) Hall may not have exclusive rights to his name,  but he does have exclusive rights to his reputation.  It would have required little effort on Merson's part to describe the other Craig Hall as "a former student,  NOT the current ballet master of the same name."   Even Wikipedia practices this "disambiguation".  When careers are on the line,  it behooves an attorney to be more careful - unless the aim is to deliberately reinforce the notion that officials of the NYCB were involved in Ms. Waterbury's  exploitation.

The habit of the media of characterizing any female ballet dancer of whatever rank as a “ballerina” is annoying enough (they don’t refer to privates and sergeants as generals) but as you note in this case Waterbury never even seems to have danced.

[nanushka]

33 minutes ago, dirac said:

The habit of the media of characterizing any female ballet dancer of whatever rank as a “ballerina” is annoying enough (they don’t refer to privates and sergeants as generals) but as you note in this case Waterbury never even seems to have danced.

While some particularly discriminating balletomanes insist that "ballerina" has only a more specific meaning, in common usage this more general definition of the term is widely accepted (and much more familiar to most) — highly unlike those uses of "general" — and so its use is, I believe, completely appropriate.

(Whether it's appropriate in reference to Waterbury is of course a separate matter — though it's been pointed out earlier in this thread that she is in fact still active as a dancer, though it is not her primary profession).

Edited September 12, 2018 by nanushka

[Longtimelurker]

14 minutes ago, Helene said:

Bloomberg, a highly reputable source, aligned with what he wrote.

Bloomberg is a reputable source in the same way that other financial press such as Barron's, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes are, and like their financial press brethren, not immune from making mistakes. Financial, tax and regulatory filings on the other hand are not only reputable, but definitive sources in showing that there is a clear separation between SAB and NYCB.

As others have pointed out, the legal complaint was sloppily written if accuracy was Merson's intent, but it was also expertly written if drawing attention from traditional and social media was his intention. Other than her social interaction with company members, an accurate portrayal of Waterbury's relationship with the actual institution of the NYC Ballet could have been construed by the media as someone who had worked for most of her life to try to be accepted into the company and was unsuccessful in doing so.

[ABT Fan]

22 minutes ago, dirac said:

The habit of the media of characterizing any female ballet dancer of whatever rank as a “ballerina” is annoying enough (they don’t refer to privates and sergeants as generals)....

Not for nothing, but there are at least three ABT corps dancers who list their title as "Ballerina" on their public-facing Instagram accounts. When professional corps dancers do it, that only fuels the media's (mis) perceptions.

[Helene]

40 minutes ago, Longtimelurker said:

Bloomberg is a reputable source in the same way that other financial press such as Barron's, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes are, and like their financial press brethren, not immune from making mistakes. Financial, tax and regulatory filings on the other hand are not only reputable, but definitive sources in showing that there is a clear separation between SAB and NYCB.

Yes to both counts. If the court has a problem with this, and it hurts her case in the long run, that will be a costly mistake.

 

40 minutes ago, Longtimelurker said:

As others have pointed out, the legal complaint was sloppily written if accuracy was Merson's intent, but it was also expertly written if drawing attention from traditional and social media was his intention.

If it's deliberate guerilla warfare, rather than sloppiness due to limited resources and time -- and that's a big "if" and speculation -- I don't know why anyone would expect the thoroughness or tactics of a white shoe law firm, at least one of which NYCB has at its disposal, from a small practitioner.  Merson's job is to win on behalf of his clients, so that he gets paid, no more or less than the lawyers at big firms.

40 minutes ago, Longtimelurker said:

Other than her social interaction with company members, an accurate portrayal of Waterbury's relationship with the actual institution of the NYC Ballet could have been construed by the media as someone who had worked for most of her life to try to be accepted into the company and was unsuccessful in doing so.

The first news of this was when the Company disclosed the internal investigation, and that they've disciplined two dancers and were trying to contact Findlay to discuss the results, was an admission that something happened.  Had she or the company made it public earlier, then it would have been easy to construe that it was sour grapes.

Once the lawsuit was filed, there was nothing to stop the media from portraying her as someone who was suing the Company because of sour grapes.  However, that probably wouldn't fly very well in the post-#metoo climate, where context and systematic enabling have been brought to the fore.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

19 minutes ago, nanushka said:

While some balletomanes insist that "ballerina" has only a more specific meaning, in common usage this more general definition of the term is widely accepted (and much more familiar to most) — highly unlike those uses of "general" — and so its use is, I believe, completely appropriate.

(Whether it's appropriate in reference to Waterbury is of course a separate matter — though it's been pointed out earlier in this thread that she is in fact still active as a dancer, though it is not her primary profession).

Eh. I'm fine with a female ballet dancer referring to herself as a ballerina when someone asks her what she does for a living, or on her social media profiles, or in a resume, or on an application, or wherever. To the general public it's as generic, descriptive, and succint as "soldier."

As a balletomane, I like to reserve capital-B Ballerina for actual capital-B Ballerinas, but the number of people of my acquaintance who understand the distinction is vanishingly small — and I see no real need to bore them with it.

[Rick]

1 hour ago, Olga said:

Lauren Lovette posted these in the comments section of her recent (love to the ladies) post:

 

• “...thank you so much for your comment ❤️ good is doing more than is being publicized right now... so many of us may not be posting on social media specifically about this, but it doesn't mean that we are staying silent or remaining idle. I promise we are fighting for a safe work environment too. Love to you

 

I also keep wondering what Lauren Lovette meant by this statement in that same IG post:

"Encourage one another. ❤️ real strength is refining yourself.... Not bringing your sister down."

[Helene]

1 hour ago, dirac said:

The habit of the media of characterizing any female ballet dancer of whatever rank as a “ballerina” is annoying enough (they don’t refer to privates and sergeants as generals) but as you note in this case Waterbury never even seems to have danced.

As noted upthread, she's dance with Wiles' company, Ballet NEXT, and the Columbia Ballet Collaborative.  She has never been a member of a full-time company.

2 minutes ago, Rick said:

I also keep wondering what Lauren Lovette meant by this statement in that same IG post:

"Encourage one another. ❤️ real strength is refining yourself.... Not bringing your sister down."

If she's wont to explain, she has the platform to do so.

[fordhambae]

58 minutes ago, Helene said:

If it's deliberate guerilla warfare, I don't know why anyone would expect the thoroughness or tactics of a white shoe law firm, at least one of which NYCB has at its disposal, from a small practitioner.  Merson's job is to win on behalf of his clients, so that he gets paid, no more or less than the lawyers at big firms.

One thing to consider if that the outcome of this case may be deemed as a landmark case in these types of cases and therefore regardless of whether Merson wins or not, he will be championed for that. Its possible that this is the motivation on his end.

[On Pointe]

Whether it's "sour grapes" or not,  Ms. Waterbury certainly is justified in being furious with Chase Finlay.  But to me,  one of the most aggravating aspects of this case is the infantilization of adult members of the NYCB,  as if the company could or should supervise them in even the most intimate aspects of their lives.  Finlay,  Ramasar and others are responsible for their own actions,  as is Ms. Waterbury.  Young people need to learn that there are sexual predators and creeps everywhere,  from CBS to the White House,  from elementary schools to the Catholic Church.  Even with safeguards in place,  your workplace can't protect you from every eventuality.  (In Ms. Waterbury's case it was somebody else's  workplace,  which is what makes her complaint against NYCB such a stretch.)  Lauren Lovette (and others) may feel that Ms. Waterbury  is trying to destroy the company they work so hard for and love because she didn't get in it,  and she has lousy taste in boyfriends.  (Maybe not,  but that's how it looks to me.)

[Helene]

3 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Lauren Lovette (and others) may feel that Ms. Waterbury  is trying to destroy the company they work so hard for and love because she didn't get in it,  and she has lousy taste in boyfriends.  (Maybe not,  but that's how it looks to me.)

I don't interpret Lovette's messages that way at all: they are about women sticking together, and the last time I looked, Waterbury is a woman, and a woman who was also involved romantically with Findlay. The people she claimed contacted her to say she was a career-killer, ie, hurt the men, not the Company, are another story.

[On Pointe]

1 hour ago, Helene said:

Yes to both counts. If the court has a problem with this, and it hurts her case in the long run, that will be a costly mistake.

 

If it's deliberate guerilla warfare, rather than sloppiness due to limited resources and time -- and that's a big "if" and speculation -- I don't know why anyone would expect the thoroughness or tactics of a white shoe law firm, at least one of which NYCB has at its disposal, from a small practitioner.  Merson's job is to win on behalf of his clients, so that he gets paid, no more or less than the lawyers at big firms.

The first news of this was when the Company disclosed the internal investigation, and that they've disciplined two dancers and were trying to contact Findlay to discuss that something happened.  Had she or the company made it public earlier, then it would have been easy to construe that it was sour grapes.

Once the lawsuit was filed, there was nothing to stop the media from portraying her as someone who was suing the Company because of sour grapes.  However, that probably wouldn't fly very well in the post-#metoo climate, where context and systematic enabling have been brought to the fore.

17 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

One thing to consider if that the outcome of this case may be deemed as a landmark case in these types of cases and therefore regardless of whether Merson wins or not, he will be championed for that. Its possible that this is the motivation on his end.

According to his website,  Jordan Merson is one if the most prominent personal injury attorneys in the country,  with hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements for his clients.  He's no "small practitioner".  NYCB will have to bring in the big guns to go up against him.  Which is neither here nor there.  Either the complaint  against NYCB has merit or it doesn't.

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by On Pointe
Correcting auto-correct.

[nanushka]

22 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

 Lauren Lovette (and others) may feel that Ms. Waterbury  is trying to destroy the company they work so hard for and love because she didn't get in it,  and she has lousy taste in boyfriends.  (Maybe not,  but that's how it looks to me.)

That interpretation doesn't seem to fit at all with what @Olga above quoted Lovette as writing in the comments on her post:

Quote

• “...thank you so much for your comment ❤️ good is doing more than is being publicized right now... so many of us may not be posting on social media specifically about this, but it doesn't mean that we are staying silent or remaining idle. I promise we are fighting for a safe work environment too. Love to you

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by nanushka

[dirac]

1 hour ago, nanushka said:

While some particularly discriminating balletomanes insist that "ballerina" has only a more specific meaning, in common usage this more general definition of the term is widely accepted (and much more familiar to most) — highly unlike those uses of "general" — and so its use is, I believe, completely appropriate.

(Whether it's appropriate in reference to Waterbury is of course a separate matter — though it's been pointed out earlier in this thread that she is in fact still active as a dancer, though it is not her primary profession).

Your mileage may vary, etc.  For general purposes "ballet dancer" is more appropriate and it is also not gender-specific, which is not mandatory but can be helpful. 

[nanushka]

4 minutes ago, dirac said:

Your mileage may vary, etc.  For general purposes "ballet dancer" is more appropriate and it is also not gender-specific, which is not mandatory but can be helpful. 

I completely agree on the gender point, and tend to use "ballet dancer" myself for that and other reasons. But unfortunately for both of us, the role of common usage in determining language meaning (and therefore in determining appropriate language usage in common contexts) is not really a matter of personal "mileage," as I believe most linguists would agree.

Edited September 12, 2018 by nanushka

[Longtimelurker]

24 minutes ago, nanushka said:

That interpretation doesn't seem to fit at all with what @Olga above quoted Lovette as writing in the comments on her post:

 

I interpreted what Lovette said in a similar fashion to On Pointe above.  I guess the problem with such vague posts made by Lovette and others is that they can be taken in differing ways. My interpretation could also be colored by the fact that as someone who has followed them for years, I would expect strong and outspoken women like Lovette, Bouder and others to take a strong stance against systemic injustice if one needed to be made. They also have the necessary clout to do so without any repercussions.

[dirac]

11 minutes ago, nanushka said:

I completely agree on the gender point, and tend to use "ballet dancer" myself for that and other reasons. But unfortunately for both of us, the role of common usage in determining language meaning (and therefore in determining appropriate language usage in common contexts) is not really a matter of personal "mileage," as I believe most linguists would agree.

Looks like your mileage varies on that, as well, nanushka. I'm satisfied with my own vehicle's MPG, myself, and will stick with that -- and continue to deplore the use of the term "ballerina" when it plainly does not apply.

[nanushka]

1 minute ago, Longtimelurker said:

...I would expect strong and outspoken women like Lovette, Bouder and others to take a strong stance against systemic injustice if one needed to be made. They also have the necessary clout to do so without any repercussions.

Certainly, though they may have professional obligations that prevent them from doing so in this case.

[Helene]

[Admin hat on]

If you cannot cite what other women in the Company have said (from public-facing social media) or cite an example of where any dancer references what any other dancer said, do not post the interpretations/suppositions here.

[Admin hat off]

[FITTB85]

I don’t think getting money out of NYCB is her objective. I think her objective is to expose the misogynistic behavior of some of its company members who violated her.  She could have pressed criminal charges against Finlay, gone to court, settled financially w/ Finlay only. That doesn’t give her the feeling of justice against the 8 other people who were complicit in the crimes against her.  By filing a lawsuit against NYCB she is publicly exposing the vile actions of several people involved.  As public figures who are representatives of their employer (The face of company so-to-speak) Finlay, Ramasar, Catazaro’s actions are a reflection of the company.  Going after only Finlay (who she has a clear case against) only punishes 1/8 of the involved parties. Going after NYCB she can name more of the parties and exact punishment against them. No, she’s not getting money from Catazaro or Ramasar but they are being punished. 

I don’t think NYCB should be policing its employees, but as reflections of the company through their social media presence I think they have a responsibility to intervene if someone presents behavior that will become a liability. Multiple DUI arrests for example (Peter Martins). 

[bcash]

3 hours ago, balletforme said:

This is what Pointe Magazine asked:

But should aspiring ballet dancers really "run in the other direction"?

Were her alleged experiences isolated indences perpetuated by a tiny percentage of just one company—or are they indicative of major problems in today's ballet culture within and beyond NYCB's walls?

 

That quote at the end of NYT's article struck me as emotionally manipulative the very first time I read it. Using the imagery of innocent, eager, young female ballet students to blur the specifics of her case. Who did she expect to "protect" her, given that her relationship with Finlay started after she left SAB and that she was never associated with NYCB? And what Finlay was alleged to have done he didn't broadcast it for his company to know. How can she extrapolate from her sense of not being "protected" to the absence of "protection" for actual students of SAB, and by logic of her general reference, all the other ballet schools?

[balletforme]

31 minutes ago, bcash said:

That quote at the end of NYT's article struck me as emotionally manipulative the very first time I read it. Using the imagery of innocent, eager, young female ballet students to blur the specifics of her case. Who did she expect to "protect" her, given that her relationship with Finlay started after she left SAB and that she was never associated with NYCB? And what Finlay was alleged to have done he didn't broadcast it for his company to know. How can she extrapolate from her sense of not being "protected" to the absence of "protection" for actual students of SAB, and by logic of her general reference, all the other ballet schools?

I  have no problem with Waterbury's quote, at all.  

I don't think that she was emotionally  manipulative. 

I was referring to Pointe's magazines' requests for various people to respond. 

[fordhambae]

1 hour ago, FITTB85 said:

I don’t think getting money out of NYCB is her objective. I think her objective is to expose the misogynistic behavior of some of its company members who violated her. 

We don't know who and if it was other company members violated her. The lawsuit does not state that her material was shared with those other dancers you mentioned, it just states that they were involved in their own sharing of inappropriate material. I think that is important to note. As stated previously, the lawsuit is rather sloppily written and parts have caused confusion about this.

[On Pointe]

1 hour ago, FITTB85 said:

I don’t think getting money out of NYCB is her objective. I think her objective is to expose the misogynistic behavior of some of its company members who violated her.  She could have pressed criminal charges against Finlay, gone to court, settled financially w/ Finlay only. That doesn’t give her the feeling of justice against the 8 other people who were complicit in the crimes against her.  By filing a lawsuit against NYCB she is publicly exposing the vile actions of several people involved.  As public figures who are representatives of their employer (The face of company so-to-speak) Finlay, Ramasar, Catazaro’s actions are a reflection of the company.  Going after only Finlay (who she has a clear case against) only punishes 1/8 of the involved parties. Going after NYCB she can name more of the parties and exact punishment against them. No, she’s not getting money from Catazaro or Ramasar but they are being punished. 

 

Of course Ms. Waterbury wants money.  She's asking for actual and punitive damages.  Merson wants money too.  If she prevails,  he will get about 40% of whatever she is awarded.  I don't  fault either one of them for wanting money,  but I'm not buying the notion that her real aim is to expose misogynist attitudes in the ballet world.   There are multiple ways she could have done that without suing.  She could have filed criminal charges first,  but she has likely been advised that the case against NYCB is unlikely to be upheld.  She might even lose a case against Finlay and Ramasar,  or the DA might decline to press charges,  and then where would she be?  She's doing the smart thing by suing civilly.  I just don't believe she has a case against the company.

I spent many years as part of the governing council of a performer's union,  where one of my tasks was adjudicating disputes between performers and producers as well as performer against performer.  I learned that there are truly three sides to every story,  and it's unwise to take any claim at face value without a thorough investigation.  I may sound a bit harsh,  but it's nothing compared to what NYCB's lawyers will have to say if this case goes to trial.