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

[Helene]

15 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

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.

Actually, it does: for example, in #52, Ramasar solicited (quote provided in the complaint) the photos/videos -- with two exclamation points, and in #53, Finlay complied.

7 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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. 

I'm not sure how she would file criminal charges against an institution.

I think she wants both, and rightly so.  By bringing NYCB into it, it brings the entire organization, including the administrative staff, into the case.  As opposed to the people who think that a new Artistic Director can come in and create cultural change on their own.

[fordhambae]

2 minutes ago, Helene said:

Actually, it does: for example, in #52, Ramasar solicited (quote provided in the complaint) the photos/videos -- with two exclamation points, and in #53, Finlay complied. 

Ah yes you are correct, my apologies. The lawsuits states in section 6 that this sharing occurred exclusively at the NYC Ballet and on tv she stated that her material "was sent to at least 9 men if not more". We haven't heard about these other individuals, except as you stated above in section 52.

[Helene]

12 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Ah yes you are correct, my apologies. The lawsuits states in section 6 that this sharing occurred exclusively at the NYC Ballet and on tv she stated that her material "was sent to at least 9 men if not more". We haven't heard about these other individuals, except as you stated above in section 52.

Recipients mentioned in the complaint at least five more, with details:  "donor," "former student" (identified as Craig Hall), "employees," and "pimp."  Employee is mentioned more than once, and it isn't clear how many employees, but the complaints states that "employees" sent her images to a pimp, which they couldn't do, unless they had them.  (emphasis mine) From the quotes in the complaint, the people received images of her and/or solicited them.

Catazaro is mentioned twice in section #73, in reference to his suspension, but there are no quotes from his mails/text, nor an assertion that he sent her images or commented on them on on any other images; if he didn't, that would mean the NYCB was willing to suspend him because he received them unsolicited and didn't report them.  No other dancers are referenced in the complaint.

[FITTB85]

53 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

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.

I agree Waterbury wants money and it's realistic for her to anticipate a financial settlement from Finlay.  I also think her lawyer has advised her that it was much more of a gamble to seek financial restitution from NYCB.  I think she chose to continue in filing the suit because of the exposure it would bring despite the likelihood that the suit against NYCB will be dismissed. 

[Rick]

Is Waterbury getting Danskin endorsements?

 

[kylara7]

On 9/10/2018 at 6:05 PM, bcash said:

Or it may sadly speak to ballet's overall marginal presence in America's cultural landscape. 

I don't know if it's a positive or negative observation, but there are so many different sexual harassment/harassment scandals going on right now in a variety of workplaces, organizations, and interest areas that many people are focused on the one that is most closely related to them/their background/their interests. In my circle of friends and colleagues right now, people are talking (including unending social media conversations) about current events in universities/academic departments, the health/fitness/nutrition field, various media orgs, non-profits, and yes, the arts (ballet, theatre, opera, etc.).

I guess I'm glad that these issues cannot be covered up as easily in the past and that the shaming, isolating, and discrediting of victims is much harder to pull off in the age of social media, but the revelations certainly are painful. I think we can forgive everyone for not being able to keep up with every single example (and as others have mentioned, I personally find that I can only absorb so much and then have to step away to maintain an even keel).

 

Edited September 12, 2018 by kylara7
Typo

[Helene]

Her post says "continually supported," which suggests a prior relationship.  What kind isn't clear from the post.

[melissaga]

Ms. Waterbury has been a model for Danskin for some time. If you scroll through Danskin's Instagram, you will find plenty of older posts with her in them. 

[Drew]

7 hours ago, Longtimelurker said:

They also have the necessary clout to do so without any repercussions.

Even a well-known principal dancer can be phased out through casting decisions etc. There will always be "artistic" ways to explain those decisions. No-one is irreplaceable especially in a field as competitive as classical ballet and a company as over-brimming with talent as NYCB.  Add to that the conflicted and often very unpleasant reactions of the public when artists speak out on any controversial issue -- reactions which may also have career consequences for those who speak out.

So,  I think there is always a risk of repercussions...it may be less serious for some than others--if you are planning to retire or can pick up guest star gigs (and find those reasonably satisfying) then maybe you are risking less than someone just beginning a career, but nothing seems risk-free here. Though...perhaps collective action and collective voicing gives some protection: if all the company's women principal dancers or soloists could agree on a statement or some such. Even there, I think one shouldn't under-rate how hard it is to speak out publicly; and in the face of  group action company management might still decide that dancer x or y was the "ringleader." (As far as this particular case goes, some of the company's dancers are probably--like many of us here--not confident they know exactly what happened, who was involved etc....and that may influence their decisions about speaking out as well.)

Because it's so hard/risky to speak out in situations like this one, I'm not too quick to condemn people who don't speak out publicly, but sometimes speaking publicly has an important role to play in bringing about a better system--maybe even a necessary role.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Drew
grammar error

[Longtimelurker]

1 hour ago, Drew said:

Even a well-known principal dancer can be phased out through casting decisions etc. There will always be "artistic" ways to explain those decisions. No-one is irreplaceable especially in a field as competitive as classical ballet and a company as over-brimming with talent as NYCB.  Add to that the conflicted and often very unpleasant reactions of the public when artists speak out on any controversial issue -- reactions which may also have career consequences for those who speak out.

So,  I think there is always a risk of repercussions...it may be less serious for some than others--if you are planning to retire or can pick up guest star gigs (and find those reasonably satisfying) then maybe you are risking less than someone just beginning a career, but nothing seems risk-free here. Though...perhaps collective action and collective voicing gives some protection: if all the companies women principal dancers or soloists could agree on a statement or some such. Even there, I think one shouldn't under-rate how hard it is to speak out publicly; and in the face of  group action company management might still decide that dancer x or y was the "ringleader." (As far as this particular case goes, some of the company's dancers are probably--like many of us here--not confident they know exactly what happened, who was involved etc....and that may influence their decisions about speaking out as well.)

Because it's so hard/risky to speak out in situations like this one, I'm not too quick to condemn people who don't speak out publicly, but sometimes speaking publicly has an important role to play in bringing about a better system--maybe even a necessary role.

I want to clarify that I wasn't condemning anyone for not speaking out, but we will have to disagree regarding the risk of repercussions for select individuals such as Lovette. I think if she really believed there was a systemic issue that put her and her colleagues at risk as is alleged in the court documents and spoke out about it, then the public reaction would not be negative especially in this #metoo environment. I also don't believe she would become marginalized and have that explained away by artistic reasons given the said environment along with her value to the company as both a dancer and choreographer.

[tutu]

On 9/12/2018 at 6:35 AM, bcash said:

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.

I’m not sure why the topic is being raised as a point of concern here, except perhaps in an attempt to paint a particular portrait of Waterbury (positive or negative). Nonetheless, it’s an inaccurate perception of who’s “unusual” for GS purposes today.

At GS, there are many, many, many former SAB/PCS, SAB/PPAS, actor/PCS, model/PCS, musician/PCS, former SFB School students, UNCSA students and other conservatory students who did not immediately enter into a full-time career in their artistic field. This should not be unexpected. PCS, PPAS, and other academic programs that adapt to aspiring artists’ intense training schedules are nontraditional: they don’t generally reflect the experience at most American high schools or elite boarding schools, for reasons that should be easy to ascertain. 

There is a well-trod path between PCS and Columbia GS, and it would be more surprising to see a student with Waterbury’s background at Columbia College instead of GS. I can understand that that might be unexpected, but it reflects the current reality. 

[tutu]

4 hours ago, Longtimelurker said:

I think if she really believed there was a systemic issue that put her and her colleagues at risk as is alleged in the court documents and spoke out about it, then the public reaction would not be negative especially in this #metoo environment.

You and I have wildly different understandings of what happens to most women who take public stances, especially in the Internet age.

[KayDenmark]

9 hours ago, On Pointe said:

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.

If there ends up being a large amount of money in question, Miss Waterbury can expect to be raked over the coals in most unpleasant fashion, both by Finlay's lawyers and by NYCB's.

I assume that she and her lawyer are counting on a settlement - which, as I said upthread, she could probably win from Finlay, based on what we know now. But if Finlay or NYCB responds or counter-sues, they are unlikely to play nice.

One aspect I haven't seen discussed elsewhere on this thread is the privacy of the other dancers involved in the incidents named in Miss Waterbury's complaint - for example, the alleged victim of a rape by a principal in Vail, Colorado. Perhaps this individual is processing the incident in his or her own way and would prefer not to be hauled into a discovery process by lawyers from both sides of Miss Waterbury's suit.

The same is true for other dancer's pictures that have been shared - no matter how angry they might be about the infraction, they may not want to get involved in an energy-draining lawsuit for reasons of their own.

Is it fair for Miss Waterbury to use their experiences to bolster her own case?

[Drew]

2 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

 

Is it fair for Miss Waterbury to use their experiences to bolster her own case?

It may not be--but it also may not be fair for their silence to protect people (or an institution) responsible for harm done to her. Both of those things can be true.

And since her case against NYCB involves claiming patterns of behavior by the company that contributed to the harm done to her, there is no way to make it without invoking other events that have happened there.

(I also assume there are legal rules and protocols involved in the case of rape victims etc. that help to protect them in cases like this -- but that part of this particular complaint may just turn out to be hearsay anyway. Something Ms. Waterbury or someone else "heard" and reported to her lawyer. We don't know.)

I agree she is likely to face harsh and ugly treatment in a legal battle--or indeed in a public relations one.  She already has had some genuinely insulting language lobbed at her (reported in the press) alongside more mildly critical language. She entered the public sphere with this case, and I hope her lawyers and advisors prepared her for what would happen if she didn't receive a settlement -- which presumably would have had a non-disclosure agreement attached. (At least insofar as anyone can be prepared.)

Edited September 13, 2018 by Drew

[variated]

I think we should accept that it is a matter of fact that these messages were sent.  If that were not the case, the company and the named individuals would be shouting from the rooftops that she is a liar. 

That being the case, any dancer, other employee, donor or other individual who did not ask to be taken out of the discussion when they received the pictures has violated this young lady.  And those who responded by asking for more pictures or sending pictures of their own behaved in a thoroughly egregious manner.  

[KayDenmark]

1 hour ago, Drew said:

I hope her lawyers and advisors prepared her for what would happen if she didn't receive a settlement -- which presumably would have had a non-disclosure agreement attached. (At least insofar as anyone can be prepared.)

 

I wouldn't count on her lawyers to have prepared her for anything, at least not thoroughly. Their expertise appears to be creating a media storm and extracting settlements, not the psychological care of fragile complainants. I hope Miss Waterbury has substantial backup from friends, family, and others without a personal agenda in this case. 

Whether she wins a settlement or not, this is likely to be the first few pages of Google results for Miss Waterbury for the foreseeable future as she builds her career, in the dance world or outside of it.

 

 

 

 

[balanchinefreak]

On 9/10/2018 at 9:36 AM, On Pointe said:

Scharf misspoke.  Neither he nor NYCB can unilaterally declare that anything in the Waterbury complaint actually happened as claimed.  "Craig Hall" is referenced in the complaint as a ballet student.  One of the company dancers recently married "Craig Hall",  and of course "Craig Hall" is a beloved ex-soloist and current member of the interim leadership team.  Some of those presumed guilty are not even named in the complaint.  It will take a lengthy adjudication  to determine exactly who did what to whom.

2

"Scharf misspoke"

How?

"Neither he nor NYCB can unilaterally declare that anything in the Waterbury complaint actually happened as claimed. "

Sure he can - if he was shown the evidence.

She's a young woman who was violated, and don't tell me that it hasn't been proven yet. It has been. Scharf said so. Read his statement. He doesn't dispute that she was violated, he's saying NYCB didn't have anything to do with it. Which may be true. 

And to me it's pretty obvious why the plaintiff is including both NYCB and Finlay as defendants - to put a wedge between them and force either one or both to turn on one another. Which is exactly what happened. And it didn't take long. We haven't heard from Finlay yet - we can assume (speculation here, well, sorry) that his lawyer is working overtime. But NYCB came out loud and clear very quickly - and threw their golden boy right under the bus. Where he belongs.

I stand with Waterbury. 

 

[BalanchineFan]

On 9/11/2018 at 10:20 AM, Kathleen O'Connell said:

I worked at a company that had mandatory diversity training that included a unit on sexual harassment. We had something even more valuable, though: men who were willing to call out other men when they engaged in behavior that demeaned and degraded women. 

This NY Times article is on topic. I hope the link works:

Sexual Harrassment Trainings Don’t Work, But These Things Do

Traditional methods can backfire, but ideas like teaching bystanders to intervene and promoting more women have proved effective.  Read More...
 

[KayDenmark]

5 hours ago, balanchinefreak said:

We haven't heard from Finlay yet - we can assume (speculation here, well, sorry) that his lawyer is working overtime. But NYCB came out loud and clear very quickly - and threw their little golden boy right under the bus. Where he belongs.

 

Finlay's career is over and he faces possible criminal charges as well as potentially massive civil damages. 

His quick resignation suggests that he did something he couldn't defend, and perhaps didn't want to talk to the NYCB board because anything said to them could be used against him in a criminal case. The law has remedies for whatever he has done, and Miss Waterbury is pursuing those remedies.

 

 

[kylara7]

That NYT article that BalanchineFan posted is on point and accurately describes what I have observed in a variety of private/public workplaces. Many workplaces have a written policy on sexual harassment and some have training on that policy, but most of time it's a "CYA" checkbox for the employer. Other workplaces have a culture that does not tolerate sexual harassment, and that usually comes down from the top leadership and is upheld by a critical mass of people at all levels. A body of literature in organizational behaviour (mostly from the sports and corporate worlds) shows that organizations tend to take on the style/personality of their leadership/leadership teams and that the implicit standards of behaviour tend to permeate to a greater extent than written standards. I don't envy whoever is the next AD of NYCB because they will have a lot on their plate.

I worked in a place that had a detailed anti-sexual harassment policy and a reporting process that looked so good on paper, but a) the person(s) doing the harassment was Senior Manager X and b) the reporting process mandated that sexual harassment should be reported either directly Senior Manager X or to the HR person who was Senior Manager X's best buddy and enabler. So no one ever reported. And many good people eventually left that workplace because it was truly toxic (including me, although I personally was not harassed in that particular job). The problem is that not everyone has the ability to just leave and find another job, which is probably also a problem in a ballet company.

And zooming out from NYCB to the broader cultural context, bystander intervention is simply the putting a name to the duty by all of us to uphold the social contract, which means doing uncomfortable work like checking bad actors as well as nice things like saying hello to the neighbours and helping old ladies across the street. The legal system is one piece of a larger ecosystem of checks and balances on a community, large or small, but the legal system only handles situations that rise to a certain level. On the lower levels, we all use social pressure and enforce social values. If I invite someone to my dinner party and find out that they took my favourite sweater, I don't call the police, but don't invite them over anymore and I probably tell my friends and social circle what they did. Social sanction and shunning are not always negative; positive peer pressure is also a force. So we're all in this together, one way or another, and what we tolerate becomes the norm. I'm glad more people are speaking up and pushing back. Silence and neutrality only help the bad actors.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by kylara7
Added clarification

[KayDenmark]

I stand with humans. Both Alexandra Waterbury and Chase Finlay are humans with strengths and weaknesses, good and bad sides, gifts and faults, bad deeds and good deeds.

De-humanizing either one of them does not promote justice, kindness, or a better world.

Finlay (and Ramasar and Catazaro and the donor, etc.) may deserve punishment, but nobody deserves hatred and humiliation.

[balanchinefreak]

2 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

I stand with humans. Both Alexandra Waterbury and Chase Finlay are humans with strengths and weaknesses, good and bad sides, gifts and faults, bad deeds and good deeds.

De-humanizing either one of them does not promote justice, kindness, or a better world.

Finlay (and Ramasar and Catazaro and the donor, etc.) may deserve punishment, but nobody deserves hatred and humiliation.

I dehumanized no one. I said I stand with Alexandra. Chase Finlay violated her. I take sides here, yes.

And I would still like to know how Charles Scharf misspoke.

Chase Finlay comes from an extremely privileged background. After copping a plea, he will go to college, probably work in his father's fancy architectural firm, and forget that he was ever a ballet dancer.

I have limited stocks of compassion. I prefer to save my compassion for the victims.

 

[balanchinefreak]

PS to my earlier comment. Chase Finlay and all the others certainly do deserve to be humiliated. Absolutely. He humiliated her consciously without compassion, and against all morality, not to mention common sense. A little humiliation will do him good.

They also deserve to be hated. I don't deserve to hate them, because hate only hurts the hater, but they do deserve hatred. if anybody doesn't like this, tough. I can live with that.

I do not stand with humans who rape other humans. I do not stand with humans who kill other humans. I do not stand with humans who prevent other humans from sitting at lunch counters because of the color of their skin.

I stand with victims. I take sides.

Finally, I admire Ashley Bouder for speaking out. I might have edited her comment to read a little bit differently, but she has guts and courage for speaking out. 

Good on you, Ashley.

[Helene]

[Admin Megaphone On]

STOP TALKING ABOUT EACH OTHER.  POST YOUR POINT OF VIEW, AND LEAVE IT. 

If you don't, you won't be able to post further on this topic. 

Edited to add:  No one has the obligation to answer anything, on this topic or any other.  Whether that is posed as a question or a request.

[Admin Megaphone Off]

 

[Helene]

1 hour ago, balanchinefreak said:

Chase Finlay comes from an extremely privileged background. After copping a plea, he will go to college, probably work in his father's fancy architectural firm, and forget that he was ever a ballet dancer.

He can only cop a plea if he is brought up on criminal charges.  If this remains on the civil track, even settling before trial does not prove anything, except that whoever settled believes that settling is better than going forward, and there are many reasons why someone would do that, aside from guilt.  If a case is settled before trial, an organization will often publicize a disclaimer that it's not an admission of guilt.

The only thing we know is that communications were submitted to NYCB, they did an internal investigation, and, based on the results, they decided to suspend two dancers and to attempt to contact a third about discipline.