Jump to content
abatt

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

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Even if the company goes through every dancers phones and finds things they don’t find appropriate, even if it turns out female dancers were also acting poorly to male dancers too, if they decide to fire 5 more dancers, 10 more or even 50 more, Waterbury was still never an employee of the company.

 

I once dated a Goldman Sachs employee who was abusive. Can I launch an internal investigation and have the phones of all GS employees worldwide vetted? 

I am very sorry you went through that.

I suppose the answer to your question depends on the circumstances of his abuse and who else at Goldman Sachs, if anyone, was involved.

I assume even if you did have a case--judge didn't dismiss it etc.-- because of plausible indications of a massive problem at Goldman Sachs, blah, blah there would still be limits on whose phones could be vetted etc. Law is slow and complicated.

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Drew said:

I am very sorry you went through that.

I suppose the answer to your question depends on the circumstances of his abuse and who else at Goldman Sachs, if anyone, was involved.

I assume even if you did have a case--judge didn't dismiss it etc.-- because of plausible indications of a massive problem at Goldman Sachs, blah, blah there would still be limits on whose phones could be vetted etc. Law is slow and complicated.

My point is, it was our problem. We are still friends in fact and he is in a much better place now (recovered alch etc). 

I don’t see it as having warranted a larger scale investigation or lawsuit against GS even if many men there are similar (they are).

Thats why I feel strongly about this, I believe this should be between the two parties who dated.

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

I once dated a Goldman Sachs employee who was abusive. Can I launch an internal investigation and have the phones of all GS employees worldwide vetted? 

I think you're mixing your metaphors here.  Goldman Sachs can launch an internal investigation.  Whether they are able to have the personal phones of their worldwide employees to be vetted would be a combination of local and national laws and policy.  Just like NYCB launched internal investigations into Peter Martins and into Finlay, Ramasar, and Catazaro, at least.  

If you found a lawyer and filed a lawsuit, and the court did not exclude Goldman Sachs from the case, then your and their lawyers would be subject to the terms and limits of discovery.

As far as I know Goldman Sachs has training programs, but they start with adults.  They don't have a school affiliate that is their primary source of employees and where students, who can be resident from their early teens, and even live in the dorms while they transition from being an apprentice to a full company member, and feeds into the company.  

You took a different path, which was your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Helene said:

Are women "actors" when they're raped, assaulted, are beaten by their partners, and have their images shared? 

I'm sorry,  but your meaning is very unclear to me,  as regards this case.  I was referring to the women,  referenced in the suit,  who willingly engaged in sexual activities.  While Ms. Waterbury's image was shared without her knowledge,  there is no claim in the suit of anyone being raped,  assaulted or beaten.  ETA there is mention of an alleged rape within the company,  but it has nothing to do with Finlay-Waterbury  or my comments.

1 hour ago, nanushka said:

Well, you began your post with this:

...and you ended it with this:

And you didn't mention anyone other than her being at fault for the harms you described in your post. It seemed to me that you were "primarily" (if not, in fact, only) blaming her for those harms.

Ms. Waterbury  is the one doing the suing.  I am discussing the elements in her lawsuit,  not the alleged behavior overall.  Her case against the defendants would be just as strong without mentioning the other women.  When the defendants  respond,  I doubt that the consensual activity of the other women  will be brought up.  It's irrelevant.

 

Edited by On Pointe
Addendum

Share this post


Link to post

Back the the party in the Washington, DC hotel room for a moment -- If the underage apprentices of 16 and 17 years, were not declared emancipated minors, are there any child labor laws that were violated by not having this group of people under supervision during nonworking hours?

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, lmspear said:

Back the the party in the Washington, DC hotel room for a moment -- If the underage apprentices of 16 and 17 years, were not declared emancipated minors, are there any child labor laws that were violated by not having this group of people under supervision during nonworking hours?

While "underage" is listed in the complaint and "underage apprentices" are listed in the interview, it isn't clear what "underage" means:  for drinking purposes, that is 21.  The age of sexual consent in Washington DC, according to the information on this site is 16.  (In NY, it's 17.)  

If, and that's an undetermined if, the apprentices were legal minors (16-17), I haven't seen anything public or contractual that discusses any requirement for the company to provide supervision.  Perhaps someone else knows how to search this, but, while I have read that children in theater and films need to have a chaperone below a certain age, almost all of the search results I can find for children working in the entertainment industry are from UK sites, and the US information is about unaccompanied children on airlines.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Helene said:

While "underage" is listed in the complaint and "underage apprentices" are listed in the interview, it isn't clear what "underage" means:  for drinking purposes, that is 21.  The age of sexual consent in Washington DC, according to the information on this site is 16.  (In NY, it's 17.)  

If, and that's an undetermined if, the apprentices were legal minors (16-17), I haven't seen anything public or contractual that discusses any requirement for the company to provide supervision.  Perhaps someone else knows how to search this, but, while I have read that children in theater and films need to have a chaperone below a certain age, almost all of the search results I can find for children working in the entertainment industry are from UK sites, and the US information is about unaccompanied children on airlines.

There is very little supervision required in  New York for stage children of any age.  When she was starring in Annie on Broadway at age eleven,  Sarah Jessica Parker used to take the subway and the bus to the theater by herself.  In California,  you have very strict rules on movie and TV sets regarding hours worked and on set education,  but not in New York.  At any rate anyone old enough to be an apprentice at NYCB  is too old to be supervised.  The reality is nobody chaperones seventeen year old kids working in fast food either.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, fordhambae said:

My point is, it was our problem. We are still friends in fact and he is in a much better place now (recovered alch etc). 

I don’t see it as having warranted a larger scale investigation or lawsuit against GS even if many men there are similar (they are).

Thats why I feel strongly about this, I believe this should be between the two parties who dated.

It was his problem. You are a survivor. If there are a large number of abusers in an environment and leadership is looking the other way, then there is a culture of abuse. Glad he has recovered, though.

I think that some of the backlash to Waterbury, broadly speaking, comes from the fact that it is making others reckon with their trauma. People are upset that she is publically asking for accountability instead of staying silent/minimizing the severity of the behavior like previous generations of survivors.

Also as Finlay's partner - who accompanied him to official NYCB events - she had more access to the goings-on inside NYCB than the average former SAB student. I'm sure he told her quite a bit, and she saw some events herself. I have no reason to believe she was snooping. And it's always a terrible idea to give any passwords to anyone.

As for her desire to avoid a rigorous interview: she was interviewed by Good Morning America and Teen Vogue and Jezebel have covered her story.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Pique Arabesque said:

As for her desire to avoid a rigorous interview: she was interviewed by Good Morning America and Teen Vogue and Jezebel have covered her story.

 

I'm assuming Good Morning America agreed to some ground rules before the interview, and morning TV interviews are by nature very short and not comprehensive.

Jezebel wrote a sympathetic (and slightly profane) story based on the original NYPost story about Miss Waterbury's complaint; the story contains no original reporting. 

I looked for a Teen Vogue article on the case without success - can you provide a link? (I did find a fun Teen Vogue piece on the NYCB female dancers' skincare routines, though: https://www.teenvogue.com/gallery/new-york-city-ballet-dancers-share-skincare-routines)

At any rate, Miss Waterbury hasn't had to deal with an impartial journalist asking awkward questions, and if I were her or her lawyer, I wouldn't make that part of my strategy either. 

 

Today's September 27th. Shouldn't we be hearing from Chase Finlay soon?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

Today's September 27th. Shouldn't we be hearing from Chase Finlay soon?

Not necessarily.  The amended complaint was only filed last week, and he would filing an answer to the amended complaint, not the original complaint. Also, extensions to file are routinely granted.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

 

I think that some of the backlash to Waterbury, broadly speaking, comes from the fact that it is making others reckon with their trauma. People are upset that she is publically asking for accountability instead of staying silent/minimizing the severity of the behavior like previous generations of survivors.

Also as Finlay's partner - who accompanied him to official NYCB events - she had more access to the goings-on inside NYCB than the average former SAB student. I'm sure he told her quite a bit, and she saw some events herself. I have no reason to believe she was snooping. And it's always a terrible idea to give any passwords to anyone.

Is there evidence of a backlash against Ms. Waterbury?  All I have seen is universal praise and support for her.  Members of NYCB are wise not to speak out about an ongoing lawsuit,  and have likely been ordered not to by management,  an almost universal practice when corporations are sued.  As a member of two performers' unions,  I am concerned about the rights of the union members involved,  especially what I consider the unjust termination of Zachary Catazaro.  Questioning elements of the Waterbury  complaint does not constitute a backlash.  

The court will determine if reading Finlay's text messages is snooping.  But reading a romantic partner's private communications is almost guaranteed to end badly,  even when there is no reason to suspect any nefarious activity.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

But reading a romantic partner's private communications is almost guaranteed to end badly,  even when there is no reason to suspect any nefarious activity.

Some people would rather not be kept in the dark, while everyone around them knew lots more about their partner and relationship than they did.  I wouldn't call that ending badly, however painful.  

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, On Pointe said:

There is very little supervision required in  New York for stage children of any age.  When she was starring in Annie on Broadway at age eleven,  Sarah Jessica Parker used to take the subway and the bus to the theater by herself.  In California,  you have very strict rules on movie and TV sets regarding hours worked and on set education,  but not in New York.  At any rate anyone old enough to be an apprentice at NYCB  is too old to be supervised.  The reality is nobody chaperones seventeen year old kids working in fast food either.

Actually kids all over the city use public transportation Bus and subway to get to and from school.  The schools issue tickets. 

And NY Child Labor laws are pretty robust, as are the regs governing supervision, schooling, rehearsal hours, etc. (Know several kids who are on Broadway now).  Not saying that there aren't problems but no production company trying to sell tickets to a kid friendly show is going to want the kids in the show to be abused.  .bad for business. 

 

https://labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/secure/child_index.shtm

 

Edited by balletforme

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, balletforme said:

Actually kids all over the city use public transportation Bus and subway to get to and from school.  The schools issue tickets. 

And NY Child Labor laws are pretty robust, as are the regs governing supervision, schooling, rehearsal hours, etc. (Know several kids who are on Broadway now).  Not saying that there aren't problems but no production company trying to sell tickets to a kid friendly show is going to want the kids in the show to be abused.  .bad for business. 

 

https://labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/secure/child_index.shtm

 

While NYC children tend to be very self-reliant and use public transportation all of the time,  it's still unusual for an eleven year old to go to work on the subway alone at night.   (I remember an interview with Amar Ramasar where he recalled that,  when he was about twelve,  his mother showed him how to use the subway to get from the Bronx to SAB by himself,  once.  After that,  he was on his own.)  

Producers of shows with child actors often make special accommodations for them,  like setting aside a room for them to do their homework,  or splitting big roles between two or three children,  like the title role in Billy Elliott.  There is usually an assistant stage manager or cast member tasked with keeping an eye on them - a dark backstage area can be dangerous.  And being children,  they are apt to get into mischief - I worked on a show where a stagehand broke his leg while protecting a child.  When I was an active union councillor,  the well-being of child actors was a great concern of mine.   I have worked with children who were the main support of their families,  which didn't  mean they were treated kindly by their parents. 

None of this applies to apprentices of NYCB,  who may be too young to drink,  but are otherwise old enough to fend for themselves.  And why not - many of them have been living in dorms in NYC while at SAB from a very young age.  College freshmen are usually around the same age as the apprentices,  and every year thousands of them are sent far away from home to go to school.  Some of them have been known to go to a wild party or two as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks--Siobhan Burke posted as well quoting from Reichlen's statement after commenting on the Abraham premier:

 

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post

Alastair Macaulay posted the complete text of Tess Reichlen’s speech on his Instagram page. This is the first part - click on MORE on Instagram to read the second part.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for posting the Macaulay photos and info.  From reading his post, it appears that Russell Janzen replaced Adrian DW last night in the new Neenan work.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes - and he and Tess Reichlen were shown in the opening film as shadowing / second cast for Maria and Adrian.  So at least Russell didn’t have to learn the part at the last moment.

Share this post


Link to post

That was a incredibly strong statement of support regarding the values of the company made by the dancers. The narrative that Waterbury needed to speak out because the female company members were unable to themselves must have been insulting. I'm glad that false narrative has been put to bed with this statement. Bravo to Tess and the whole company for making this stand with their moving words!

Edited by Longtimelurker

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Longtimelurker said:

That was a incredibly strong statement of support regarding the values of the company made by the dancers. The narrative that Waterbury needed to speak out because the female company members were unable to themselves must have been insulting. I'm glad that false narrative has been put to bed with this statement. Bravo to Tess and the whole company for making this stand with their moving words!

To be fair though, we have no idea what each NYCB dancer thinks about what was said; they have no choice but to stand there and clap.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi all and thanks for your posts! Lots of heads being put together.

And thanks for posting the statement read last night. I'm glad to hear from dancers.

On opening night, the audience applauded the pre-performance announcement. As did I. Speaking for myself, I was expressing my support for the dancers not involved in the alleged misbehavior and the institution that has given me such joy for so long.

Recent posts have discussed supervision at SAB and "snooping."

1.) Supervision

Since SAB opened regular dormitories, supervision has become more formalized (it once consisted of Violette Verdy's mother, and although she was strict, that was different).

But as regards the suit, SAB's supervisory policies may not be an issue. Arguing that the School had a "duty of care" to Ms. Waterbury years after she left will be a stretch. ("Duty of care" means a legally recognized relationship that required SAB to protect her. [https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case.html])

This particular question will be up to a judge to decide before trial (likely in response to some motion [e.g., to dismiss or for summary judgment]). The standard used will be what a "reasonable person" would accept. In theory, the judge will accept the allegations in the complaint as true and give the benefit of the doubt to the plaintiff. (https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/elements-of-a-negligence-case.html; http://www.thelangelfirm.com/Debt-Defense-Blog/2016/April/Legal-Grounds-for-a-Motion-to-Dismiss-New-York.aspx Page 2; https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/6jd/forms/SRForms/m_howto.pdf, pp. 5–6.)

The causes of action against SAB and NYCB involving negligence must clear this hurdle to proceed.

2.) "Snooping"

If I understand right, the issue here is that some of Ms. Waterbury's harm resulted from her own "snooping." That is not a legal show-stopper.

New York law recognizes negligence claims in which the victim shares responsibility for his/her harm. But It reduces the jury award by that percentage. (https://statelaws.findlaw.com/new-york-law/new-york-negligence-laws.html) 

Share this post


Link to post

If this goes to court, we'll learn what the court thinks on much of this.

As far as being fair, we don't know how making the statement was decided, what the opportunities for input were, whether or not there was anonymity involved, if there was a vote, if consensus was required, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't read the Reichlen/Danchig-Waring statement as falling clearly on either side of the debate. It takes clear stands on certain broad moral/ethical principles, but in terms of the Waterbury v. Finlay/Ramasar/Catazaro/etc. case in particular I think it could be read either way.

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.

×