Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

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


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Helene said:

Does anyone know who the dancers are in Lovette's photo?

If you click on the photo you'll see tags to each dancer's IG account. So, from left to right: India Bradley, Tiler Peck, Unity Phelan, Lauren Lovette, and Miriam Miller.

Edited by Rick
Link to post
1 hour ago, FauxPas said:

Also, one likely person who might really want to sweep this under the rug and is in a good position to do so with his financial assets is the unnamed donor in the complaint.  Clearly Waterbury and her lawyer know his name and his actions are just as bad as Finlay's, Ramasar's, Catazaro's, that particular Craig Hall at issue, etc.  But his name isn't in the complaint whereas a lot of other stuff including hearsay incidents that Waterbury was told about or are "common knowledge" in the company is in there.  

Catarazo and Ramasar were named by the Company eight days before the complaint was filed; their names were already public. According to reports of what Waterbury said on Good Morning America, there were nine men involved, which leaves six unnamed people  There is a reference to a donor, and there are several references to "employee," but it isn't clear whether this is the same employee, or different employees.  The complaint isn't very well written, and there is repetition in the descriptions of the offenses.

Link to post
4 minutes ago, Helene said:

Catarazo and Ramasar were named by the Company eight days before the complaint was filed; their names were already public. According to reports of what Waterbury said on Good Morning America, there were nine men involved, which leaves six unnamed people  There is a reference to a donor, and there are several references to "employee," but it isn't clear whether this is the same employee, or different employees.  The complaint isn't very well written, and there is repetition in the descriptions of the offenses.

So I can see that Finlay, Ramasar and Catazaro were already named due to their public suspension and resignations that were announced by NYCB.  However, why then did Waterbury and her lawyer Merson name Craig Hall and did not specify that this wasn't the former NYCB dancer who is now part of the transition team?  The caption in her summons and complaint states that the suit is against Chase Finlay and New York City Ballet, Inc. (which would include both the company and the school).  There are no other defendants named though others participated in the crimes against her.  Usually in these cases, after more discovery and hearings the complaint can be amended to add or remove defendants (or plaintiffs) and correct corporate names, etc.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Rick said:

Lauren Lovette alludes to the complaint in her latest IG post.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnmhF6KAuG4/?hl=en&taken-by=laurenlovette

This is a fairly general statement.  Again, Lovette doesn't attack anyone personally or mention specific people or incidents but makes a general statement about women achieving more respect and opportunities by supporting one another and raising each other up.  Talks about it without really talking about it.  Compare with Bouder's statement.

Link to post
8 minutes ago, FauxPas said:

The caption in her summons and complaint states that the suit is against Chase Finlay and New York City Ballet, Inc. (which would include both the company and the school).  

Since the School of American Ballet, Inc. and New York City Ballet Inc. are separate and distinct legal entities with their own Boards of Directors, staffs, financial statements, and regulatory filings, I don't think the suit of necessity targets both the company and the school. 

Link to post
17 minutes ago, FauxPas said:

However, why then did Waterbury and her lawyer Merson name Craig Hall and did not specify that this wasn't the former NYCB dancer who is now part of the transition team? 

I have no idea why or whether it would be typical to specific which [given name], unless there was more than one person with the same name discussed in the complaint, and they needed to distinguish among them.  It's a legal document, not a newspaper report.  Until/unless they comment, we won't know.

 

18 minutes ago, FauxPas said:

There are no other defendants named though others participated in the crimes against her.

None of the others took images of her without her knowledge and distributed them.  Since Findlay resigned before the Company could discipline him, we have no idea how NYCB saw his actions. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Helene said:

Does anyone know who the dancers are in Lovette's photo?

Tiler Peck, Unity Phelan, Miriam Miller ... forget who is the dancer on extreme left.  If you click on their faces, their names come up.

Link to post
1 hour ago, FauxPas said:

So I can see that Finlay, Ramasar and Catazaro were already named due to their public suspension and resignations that were announced by NYCB.  However, why then did Waterbury and her lawyer Merson name Craig Hall and did not specify that this wasn't the former NYCB dancer who is now part of the transition team?  The caption in her summons and complaint states that the suit is against Chase Finlay and New York City Ballet, Inc. (which would include both the company and the school).  There are no other defendants named though others participated in the crimes against her.  Usually in these cases, after more discovery and hearings the complaint can be amended to add or remove defendants (or plaintiffs) and correct corporate names, etc.

One might assume that Ms. Waterbury saw the name Craig Hall on a text or message and assumed it was the Craig Hall who is employed by the NYCB. The complaint specifically identifies NYCB employee Craig Hall. Since that is incorrect it makes one suspicious about what else might be incorrect in that document. 

Edited by Rock
misspelling
Link to post
1 minute ago, Rock said:

One might assume that Ms. Waterbury saw the name Craig Hall on a text or message and assumed it was the Craig Hall who is employed by the NYCB. The complaint specifically identifies NYCB employee Craig Hall. Since that it incorrect it makes one suspicious about what else might be incorrect in that document. 

I believe that the Craig Hall in the complaint was referred to as a former SAB student.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Rock said:

One might assume that Ms. Waterbury saw the name Craig Hall on a text or message and assumed it was the Craig Hall who is employed by the NYCB.

The complaint identifies "former student Craig Hall."  

If the sender has a photo assigned to their email or text profile, then in many systems, not only the name displays, but also the photo. 

Link to post
6 hours ago, FauxPas said:

 Waterbury is a student at Columbia, so she has some intelligence (whether that intelligence guides her personal life choices at her young age cannot be guaranteed).  

 

She is at the School of General Studies, which was founded to provide liberal arts education to adult and non-traditional students (veterans, etc). It's not part of the Columbia College, nor a graduate or professional school at the University. There have been retired dancers who went there (Garcia Gonzales's boyfriend graduated from that school this year or last year). I'm not saying that the academic standards are relaxed for them, but the school does take other achievements than traditionally academic ones into consideration when admitting their students. 

Which reminds me of the slightly curious case of Waterbury. She is of traditional college age, and she did not enter NYCB or any other professional dance company to pursue a dance career. Coming straight out of SAB and PCS, she seems an unusual candidate for (and student at) the GS, as it is known within Columbia.

Link to post
5 hours ago, Helene said:

The complaint identifies "former student Craig Hall."  

If the sender has a photo assigned to their email or text profile, then in many systems, not only the name displays, but also the photo. 

Technically speaking,  isn't  Craig Hall,  ex-soloist and member of the interim leadership team,  also a "former student" of SAB?  It's really not acceptable for Merson to use his name so carelessly,  especially  since other alleged culprits are not named at all. 

Link to post

Students at the School of General Studies may have different admittance requirements, but they take classes with students at Columbia College and have the same faculty, so I would still argue that you have to be quite intelligent to attend classes there. 

Link to post
42 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Technically speaking,  isn't  Craig Hall,  ex-soloist and member of the interim leadership team,  also a "former student" of SAB?  It's really not acceptable for Merson to use his name so carelessly,  especially  since other alleged culprits are not named at all. 

I completely disagree.  Craig Hall on the interim team does not have exclusive rights to his name, such that a disclaimer would need to appear in a legal document.  I would have expected two things in the complaint had it meant the Craig Hall on the interim team:  1. That his current and most relevant position for the case would have been identified  2. A specific argument that NYCB was culpable because one of their current leaders was involved would have been included.  I would have expected three things if Merson was being coy by calling the interim Craig Hall "a former student" instead of a member of the interim team:  1.  The NYT and Daily News would have found out in researching their articles that a member of the interim team was involved, and this would have been explosive in the articles they wrote, possibly eclipsing Waterbury  2. They would have slammed Merson for the description, because this could have harmed the Craig Hall who was more accurately called "a former student," his last affiliation with NYCB through the School  3. The news would have been picked up by at least as many newspapers across the US as the Martins allegations were.

Link to post

I don't think a link to this little feature from Dance Magazine has been posted--but perhaps I missed it. 

"When news about the lawsuit against New York City Ballet and Chase Finlay emerged last week, plaintiff Alexandra Waterbury, a former School of American Ballet student, told the New York Times:

'Every time I see a little girl in a tutu or with her hair in a bun on her way to ballet class, all I can think is that she should run in the other direction,' she said, 'because no one will protect her, like no one protected me.' [...]

"We reached out to a variety of authorities in the field to hear their reactions to her statement:"

A range of quotes follows from various figures in the ballet world including one from Jenifer Ringer--here is the link:

https://www.dancemagazine.com/alexandra-waterbury-2602545003.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

Perhaps this should be the beginning of a different topic? Wasn't sure...but the content of one or two of the quotes made me think maybe just put it here.

Edited by Drew
Link to post
15 minutes ago, Drew said:

A range of quotes follows from various figures in the ballet world including one from Jenifer Ringer--here is the link:

https://www.dancemagazine.com/alexandra-waterbury-2602545003.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

 

 

Ringer's quote was classy and inspirational; the others less so.

While I don't feel comfortable discussing Alexandra Waterbury's educational qualifications outside of ballet, I do think it's worth discussing whether she's taking on too much - the reform of the entire ballet establishment - when by her own account she is emotionally overwhelmed, sleeping poorly, and barely keeping herself together.

If someone in my family was in her situation, I would advise her to concentrate on the obvious and provable miscarriage of justice, which is Chase Finlay's unauthorized photographs and unauthorized sharing of those photographs. I would suggest that she focus on a civil suit against Finlay to collect damages that would cover any psychological care she requires, and perhaps some punitive damages, keeping the possibility of criminal charges open as a negotiating tactic. That seems to me like a winnable case.

On the other hand, I would not advise a young and (by her own account) highly vulnerable young person to try to take on an uncertain and difficult case against a large institution like the NYCB. It seems to me like the people who are advising her to do so (her lawyer, various people who are after the AD job) may be using Miss Waterbury to advance their own agendas.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Drew said:

I don't think a link to this little feature from Dance Magazine has been posted--but perhaps I missed it. 

"When news about the lawsuit against New York City Ballet and Chase Finlay emerged last week, plaintiff Alexandra Waterbury, a former School of American Ballet student, told the New York Times:

'Every time I see a little girl in a tutu or with her hair in a bun on her way to ballet class, all I can think is that she should run in the other direction,' she said, 'because no one will protect her, like no one protected me.' [...]

"We reached out to a variety of authorities in the field to hear their reactions to her statement:"

A range of quotes follows from various figures in the ballet world including one from Jenifer Ringer--here is the link:

https://www.dancemagazine.com/alexandra-waterbury-2602545003.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1

Perhaps this should be the beginning of a different topic? Wasn't sure...but the content of one or two of the quotes made me think maybe just put it here.

Skybetter was on target:  "Waterbury's story and sentiment abundantly rhyme with the pattern of ballet history. Feminist critic Deirdre Kelly, scholar Brenda Dixon Gottschild and historian Jennifer Homans (among others) have abundantly demonstrated how ballet sits at the historical intersection of structures of race, gender, power, sex and violence. Arguably, one outcome of this history is that institutions like NYCB have become adroit at the management of legal protections and tactical public relations required to contain discourse on abuse."

And this from Harss:  "We all know that the behavior alleged in this case is wrong, but what we need to know is whether it's systemic and widespread so that real steps can be taken to make it less likely to happen again."

 

Link to post
7 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

 

 

On the other hand, I would not advise a young and (by her own account) highly vulnerable young person to try to take on an uncertain and difficult case against a large institution like the NYCB. It seems to me like the people who are advising her to do so (her lawyer, various people who are after the AD job) may be using Miss Waterbury to advance their own agendas.

Yes

Link to post

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?

The responses kind of went all over the place, some people did not respond to the questions but to Alex Waterbury's posts. . and honestly, several of the women were not supportive at all. Then other responders just kind of knitted together a bunch of silly platitudes or distanced themselves.  Honestly, the responses were odd. Perhaps without facts, they don't want to commit to very much?  

The whole Pointe quote collection didn't really shed much light on things for me? 

Link to post
8 hours ago, Helene said:

I completely disagree.  Craig Hall on the interim team does not have exclusive rights to his name, such that a disclaimer would need to appear in a legal document.  I would have expected two things in the complaint had it meant the Craig Hall on the interim team:  1. That his current and most relevant position for the case would have been identified  2. A specific argument that NYCB was culpable because one of their current leaders was involved would have been included.  I would have expected three things if Merson was being coy by calling the interim Craig Hall "a former student" instead of a member of the interim team:  1.  The NYT and Daily News would have found out in researching their articles that a member of the interim team was involved, and this would have been explosive in the articles they wrote, possibly eclipsing Waterbury  2. They would have slammed Merson for the description, because this could have harmed the Craig Hall who was more accurately called "a former student," his last affiliation with NYCB through the School  3. The news would have been picked up by at least as many newspapers across the US as the Martins allegations were.

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.

Link to post

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

 

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...