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

[FPF]

Sarah Kaufman has posted her perspective  on the current problems at NYCB and some suggestions for what should be done: https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/theater_dance/in-wake-of-suit-against-new-york-city-balletaudiences-and-funders-should-demand-answers/2018/09/16/88f184a4-b5da-11e8-b79f-f6e31e555258_story.html?utm_term=.95cc5b32f937

Her suggested steps are: 1) admit that there's a problem; 2) replace board members and staff too closely connected with Martins; 3) set clear policies and punishments and enforce them fairly; and 4) set standards for behavior inside and outside the company.

[bcash]

9 hours ago, aurora said:

 

 

Given the activities they are accused of, I'm not sure why anyone should, at this moment, be more concerned with their feelings and their embarrassment, than those of the girlfriends and coworkers they traded images of for sexual gratification, and treated like garbage.

 

Because they are artists whose work audiences shared in, and whose careers and lives people have watched for long. To be concerned with their feelings and their embarrassment is a natural reaction, and by extension that concern also touches somewhat on our own mixed feelings. 

People don't know Waterbury. As of now nothing is proved in a court of law, nothing that suggests the firing is fully justified. 

[vipa]

One problem with Sarah Kaufman's article is that she takes all allegations as truths. The allegations against Martins were investigated. The result of the investigation would not lead me to conclude that anyone connect to Martins should be gone. The allegations made by Waterbury are still allegations, and confusing ones at that. Those allegations have been discussed and are being discussed fully on another forum. 

[aurora]

13 minutes ago, bcash said:

Because they are artists whose work audiences shared in, and whose careers and lives people have watched for long. To be concerned with their feelings and their embarrassment is a natural reaction, and by extension that concern also touches somewhat on our own mixed feelings. 

People don't know Waterbury. As of now nothing is proved in a court of law, nothing that suggests the firing is fully justified. 

As an analogy, if someone you admired as an artist murdered someone, you'd have sympathy for them, not their victim. This is why people don't come forward when powerful men sexually abuse them. People care more about the abusers than the victims.

 

Additionally, while anonymous, the female dancers whose nudes were illicitly shared should also count as artists that the audience has watched and cared about.

Edited September 17, 2018 by aurora

[Kathleen O'Connell]

47 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

This seems correct, there was never any allegation that other individuals photos were shared without their knowledge, that is just the presumption based on the lawsuit. If this is the case, would those terminations (other than Mr. Finlay) be considered unjust? Perhaps this is why the union stated they seek to arbitrate the matter for the other's involved.

From the Par. 5 of the complaint [emphasis mine]:

Defendant CHASE FINLAY and/or agents, servants, employees, donors, principals of and/or others affiliated with defendant NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC. shared sexual videos and images of plaintiff, ALEXANDRA WATERBURY, and other unknowing female victims, including other female Ballet members. Specifically, the sharing of these intimate, private, and nude images of women at defendant NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC. occurred during work hours, on work premises and amongst its coworkers, agents, servants, employees, donors, principals and/or others affiliated with the Ballet. 

Obviously, this is Ms. Waterbury's allegation. We don't know if it is a fact.

ETA: I have assumed "unknowing" means shared without their knowledge or consent rather than being filmed on the sly.

Edited September 17, 2018 by Kathleen O'Connell

[On Pointe]

2 hours ago, aurora said:

This is a hypothetical you yourself brought up and which has literally no bearing on the issue at hand.

 

The issue at hand is a lawsuit against Chase Finlay.  It's been claimed that Chase Finlay showed up to rehearsal with alcohol on his breath on more than one occasion.   My hypothetical spoke to that.  Finlay partnered other principals.  If one of those ballerinas complained about him I don't  think they would be "ostracized".  The women he danced with are as valuable to the company,  in fact more valuable,  than he is.

[Helene]

I've merged the posts on the Kaufman article into this one.

 

 

[On Pointe]

2 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

Waterbury's complaint clearly states that the photos were taken and distributed without her consent. Nude images of sex workers, for example, are taken with their consent. They are also paid for their photos and understand that the photos will be disseminated widely. This was not the case for Waterbury and the NYCB women.

1. I imagine that there will be typos in a document of that length. 

2. It could take every ounce of strength in her body for Waterbury to get out of bed in the morning. I am thinking of the people who said that Peter Frame seemed happy in the days before his suicide.

3. I seriously doubt that NYCB would part with 3 of their leading men - particularly Ramasar - if they did not find any wrongdoing. They circled the wagons around Martins earlier this year. There will likely be more information about Catazaro emerging in the subsequent months, but mild criticism of a donor/sponsor (to use your example) is probably not a fireable offense. Also, most social media platforms have a policy against pornography, which is why the images were never shared on social media (Instagram - where the dancers seem to be most active - is particularly tough on this).

4. Waterbury first discovered the images in May, and went public in September. She and her team likely spent the entire summer trying to build the strongest case possible. They are all acutely aware that any sexual misconduct claims will be under placed under a microscope from people who want to protect the men and institution involved. Also, Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar "dragged" dancers into this situation, not Waterbury. She should be applauded for her unwillingness to tolerate an abusive environment. (I am also thinking about Brett Kavanaugh's accuser, who very reluctantly and bravely came forward today. Coming forward publically can be liberating to victims).

5. I am glad that NYCB leadership has intervened before this devolves into an "acid-flinging" situation.

Also, as for her relationship to NYCB, broadcast media tends to paint in broad strokes. It is easier for the general public to see her as a *ballerina* (more clickbait-y) than a former SAB student, which probably doesn't mean much to people unfamiliar with classical ballet. I don't think that Waterbury or her team have tried to mischaracterize their relationship with NYCB.

That complaint is not particularly lengthy,  and mistakes,  even typos,  in a legal document can have devastating consequences.  But mischaracterizing the age and occupation of the complainant is no typo.  Neither is emphasizing a non-existent connection to the NYCB.  The attorney is attempting to turn a personal relationship gone bad into a workplace issue,  which is covered by state and Federal laws which could place NYCB in a disadvantageous position.

It might take every ounce of strength in his body for Zachary Catazaro to get out of bed,  considering that he has been ignominiously fired and his reputation in tatters because of someone else's dispute.  It's unfair to just assume that more evidence against him will be emerging in the future.  We don't know that.

There is no evidence that anyone went to lengths to protect the men.  Finlay took himself out and Ramasar and Catazaro have been punished severely,  with no legal adjudication.  There are at least two dancers named in the complaint - for no good reason - who are exposed to the public because of the complaint itself,  not because of anything Finlay,  Ramasar or Catazaro did.

[aurora]

1 minute ago, On Pointe said:

  There are at least two dancers named in the complaint - for no good reason - who are exposed to the public because of the complaint itself,  not because of anything Finlay,  Ramasar or Catazaro did.

Not because of anything they did? Finlay filmed his girlfriend performing sex acts and sent them to other people.

[On Pointe]

1 hour ago, vipa said:

One problem with Sarah Kaufman's article is that she takes all allegations as truths. The allegations against Martins were investigated. The result of the investigation would not lead me to conclude that anyone connect to Martins should be gone. The allegations made by Waterbury are still allegations, and confusing ones at that. Those allegations have been discussed and are being discussed fully on another forum. 

The biggest problem with the WaPo piece is that it's a load of codswallop.  Ms. Kaufman is fighting the last war - Peter Martins is gone.  Everyone involved in this lawsuit is a grownup,  not children in need of guidance as to what is right or wrong,  even if being around while Balanchine was running things automatically  conferred moral superiority.  (I don't  think it does.)  There are about a hundred dancers at NYCB and only a small number are alleged to be involved in the Finlay-Waterbury affair.  People acted as individuals.  There is no evidence of a "culture" that needs correcting.  If I were a member of NYCB I would be insulted by all these good people talking about what's wrong with me and my company.

[Pique Arabesque]

27 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

That complaint is not particularly lengthy,  and mistakes,  even typos,  in a legal document can have devastating consequences.  But mischaracterizing the age and occupation of the complainant is no typo.  Neither is emphasizing a non-existent connection to the NYCB.  The attorney is attempting to turn a personal relationship gone bad into a workplace issue,  which is covered by state and Federal laws which could place NYCB in a disadvantageous position.

It might take every ounce of strength in his body for Zachary Catazaro to get out of bed,  considering that he has been ignominiously fired and his reputation in tatters because of someone else's dispute.  It's unfair to just assume that more evidence against him will be emerging in the future.  We don't know that.

There is no evidence that anyone went to lengths to protect the men.  Finlay took himself out and Ramasar and Catazaro have been punished severely,  with no legal adjudication.  There are at least two dancers named in the complaint - for no good reason - who are exposed to the public because of the complaint itself,  not because of anything Finlay,  Ramasar or Catazaro did.

As others have said, Waterbury dances with Ballet Next, which would make her a ballet dancer. Her reported age could also be the age that she was when her relationship with Finlay began. And though SAB is not NYCB, the school-company relationship is stronger than any other in the US (as we all know, 99.9% of NYCB dancers come from SAB).

This would be a personal relationship issue if Finlay had surreptitiously recorded Waterbury and kept the images/videos for himself. It became a company issue when he shared the images with two colleagues and invited them to share surreptitiously recorded images of NYCB women (I am not sure how this part of the claim is confusing). The complaint says that Catazaro was complicit in the photo sharing, though it doesn't go beyond that. Even if he didn't send a nude image himself (and I'm not sure about this), one could argue that he failed to intervene as a bystander. I say that more evidence will likely emerge because the complaint really seems like the tip of the iceberg.

There is quite a bit of support for the men online (I'll keep it at that). It seems as though the union will intervene on behalf of Ramasar and Catazaro. All three men are handsome and accomplished and will rebound eventually (mostly because society is still not serious about holding abusers accountable). Marv Albert (the basketball commentator) pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual assault charges in the late 90s. He was fired from NBC, but rebounded and currently does commentary for TNT. 

9 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

The biggest problem with the WaPo piece is that it's a load of codswallop.  Ms. Kaufman is fighting the last war - Peter Martins is gone.  Everyone involved in this lawsuit is a grownup,  not children in need of guidance as to what is right or wrong,  even if being around while Balanchine was running things automatically  conferred moral superiority.  (I don't  think it does.)  There are about a hundred dancers at NYCB and only a small number are alleged to be involved in the Finlay-Waterbury affair.  People acted as individuals.  There is no evidence of a "culture" that needs correcting.  If I were a member of NYCB I would be insulted by all these good people talking about what's wrong with me and my company.

This has been a difficult year for NYCB. I don't always agree with Kaufman, but I don't see the issue with reaffirming a commitment to a respectful company culture. Martins might be gone, but the company is clearly dealing with his legacy.

1 hour ago, bcash said:

Because they are artists whose work audiences shared in, and whose careers and lives people have watched for long. To be concerned with their feelings and their embarrassment is a natural reaction, and by extension that concern also touches somewhat on our own mixed feelings. 

People don't know Waterbury. As of now nothing is proved in a court of law, nothing that suggests the firing is fully justified. 

If Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar were concerned about embarrassment, they shouldn't have traded nude images of colleagues. Even if Waterbury is not a household name in the ballet community, there are many people who can relate to her stories of workplace sexual misconduct.

[fondoffouettes]

50 minutes ago, Pique Arabesque said:

If Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar were concerned about embarrassment, they shouldn't have traded nude images of colleagues. Even if Waterbury is not a household name in the ballet community, there are many people who can relate to her stories of workplace sexual misconduct.

Neither Waterbury nor NYCB has accused Catazaro of trading nude photos of colleagues. I’m agnostic when it comes to Catazaro as an artist, but I feel it’s important to consider the facts as they’ve been presented.

Edited September 17, 2018 by fondoffouettes

[On Pointe]

34 minutes ago, Pique Arabesque said:

As others have said, Waterbury dances with Ballet Next, which would make her a ballet dancer. Her reported age could also be the age that she was when her relationship with Finlay began. And though SAB is not NYCB, the school-company relationship is stronger than any other in the US (as we all know, 99.9% of NYCB dancers come from SAB).

This would be a personal relationship issue if Finlay had surreptitiously recorded Waterbury and kept the images/videos for himself. It became a company issue when he shared the images with two colleagues and invited them to share surreptitiously recorded images of NYCB women (I am not sure how this part of the claim is confusing). The complaint says that Catazaro was complicit in the photo sharing, though it doesn't go beyond that. Even if he didn't send a nude image himself (and I'm not sure about this), one could argue that he failed to intervene as a bystander. I say that more evidence will likely emerge because the complaint really seems like the tip of the iceberg.

There is quite a bit of support for the men online (I'll keep it at that). It seems as though the union will intervene on behalf of Ramasar and Catazaro. All three men are handsome and accomplished and will rebound eventually (mostly because society is still not serious about holding abusers accountable). Marv Albert (the basketball commentator) pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual assault charges in the late 90s. He was fired from NBC, but rebounded and currently does commentary for TNT. 

This has been a difficult year for NYCB. I don't always agree with Kaufman, but I don't see the issue with reaffirming a commitment to a respectful company culture. Martins might be gone, but the company is clearly dealing with his legacy.

If Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar were concerned about embarrassment, they shouldn't have traded nude images of colleagues. Even if Waterbury is not a household name in the ballet community, there are many people who can relate to her stories of workplace sexual misconduct.

 

38 minutes ago, Pique Arabesque said:

As others have said, Waterbury dances with Ballet Next, which would make her a ballet dancer. Her reported age could also be the age that she was when her relationship with Finlay began. And though SAB is not NYCB, the school-company relationship is stronger than any other in the US (as we all know, 99.9% of NYCB dancers come from SAB).

This would be a personal relationship issue if Finlay had surreptitiously recorded Waterbury and kept the images/videos for himself. It became a company issue when he shared the images with two colleagues and invited them to share surreptitiously recorded images of NYCB women (I am not sure how this part of the claim is confusing). The complaint says that Catazaro was complicit in the photo sharing, though it doesn't go beyond that. Even if he didn't send a nude image himself (and I'm not sure about this), one could argue that he failed to intervene as a bystander. I say that more evidence will likely emerge because the complaint really seems like the tip of the iceberg.

There is quite a bit of support for the men online (I'll keep it at that). It seems as though the union will intervene on behalf of Ramasar and Catazaro. All three men are handsome and accomplished and will rebound eventually (mostly because society is still not serious about holding abusers accountable). Marv Albert (the basketball commentator) pleaded guilty to misdemeanor sexual assault charges in the late 90s. He was fired from NBC, but rebounded and currently does commentary for TNT. 

This has been a difficult year for NYCB. I don't always agree with Kaufman, but I don't see the issue with reaffirming a commitment to a respectful company culture. Martins might be gone, but the company is clearly dealing with his legacy.

If Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar were concerned about embarrassment, they shouldn't have traded nude images of colleagues. Even if Waterbury is not a household name in the ballet community, there are many people who can relate to her stories of workplace sexual misconduct.

In the complaint it states  that,  "Plaintiff ALEXANDRA WATERBURY is a nineteen year-old ballet dancer and a former  student at defendant NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC.",  which is untrue.  While she has studied for some time and appears quite accomplished,  she does not earn a living dancing.  What would be wrong with stating she's a twenty year old model and college student?  Nothing,  but it doesn't  bolster the image of her as a work colleague of dancers at NYCB.

Nowhere in the complaint is it claimed that Ms. Waterbury  and Mr. Finlay  began their relationship  while she was a student at SAB,  whatever her age at the time.  No way would that little detail have been left out if it had happened.  

It's a personal relationship  issue because it's between two individuals who do not work together.  She has never been a member or a student of the NYCB.  Where she went to school is irrelevant,  as is the claim that they "met at the NYCB".   They could have met anywhere,  it doesn't  make them work colleagues.

There was no legal duty for Catazaro to intervene in Finlay's activities.  If the complaint seems like "the tip of the iceberg" it's because it's expertly constructed to make you feel that way.  You're right about Ramasar and Catazaro rebounding from this.  They will,  but they shouldn't have to.  They will have a hard time matching the salary they were paid at NYCB,  unless they snag a regular spot on a TV series.  (It could happen.)

[dirac]

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

The biggest problem with the WaPo piece is that it's a load of codswallop.  Ms. Kaufman is fighting the last war - Peter Martins is gone.

I wouldn't go as far as "codswallop" - Kaufman makes some good, if not unduly arresting, points. It certainly seems, however, that she also decided to use the occasion to exercise an old hobbyhorse or two.  

[KayDenmark]

7 hours ago, Drew said:

"Oh what was she doing on Finlay's computer anyway?"  (which implies and more than implies she is a suspicious person) 

1

I can't speak for others, but this wasn't what I was implying. As I'm not a lawyer, I was questioning the admissibility of evidence (particularly in a criminal case, but also in civil circumstances) of evidence that may have been obtained without consent.

If Finlay gave Miss Waterbury permission to use his computer to check her own emails, that's presumably the limit of the consent he gave her. I doubt he gave her consent to go through Finlay's own emails or old texts, or to take screen shots of them, which I presume is what she showed her lawyer.

Could someone here with a legal background explain if evidence like this is admissible in court?

To me, it sounds like a parallel to inviting a private citizen to my home, installing him in the living room, and then finding out that while I was in the kitchen making the tea he was going into other rooms and opening drawers to collect evidence.

I know that cops aren't allowed to do this without a warrant, but what about private citizens?

Edited September 17, 2018 by KayDenmark

[On Pointe]

Speaking of so-called company culture,  in the complaint,  it is mentioned that other male dancers tried to persuade Finlay of the error of his ways,  and that what he was doing was wrong.  The names of these men are not disclosed.  They studied and worked in the same environment as Finlay.  What is it about NYCB that caused them to exhibit good morals but not Finlay?  Nothing!  This is not a ballet issue,  it's a personal issue.

[Drew]

45 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

I can't speak for others, but this wasn't what I was implying. As I'm not a lawyer, I was questioning the admissibility of evidence (particularly in a criminal case, but also in civil circumstances) of evidence that may have been obtained without consent.

I wasn't addressing your comments (or legalities per se) except in the broad sense that I'm struck by the kinds of criticism accusers are subject to in cases like these--which speaks to why people are indeed reluctant to speak out, bring accusations, etc.

42 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

  This is not a ballet issue,  it's a personal issue.

This seems to me a crux....it may turn out that that is how the courts will see it as a legal matter. Yet some workplaces are better than others, some institutions better than others. Is it really luck of the draw as to personnel etc.?  Sometimes surely yes...but I own In my work experience, I have not entirely found it so. At some workplaces problematic people are allowed to run amuck; at others not so much. I don't feel as confident as you that we know yet which it was at New York City Ballet, though we know what has been alleged. I confess the fact that at the very least three principal dancers are involved in whatever fashion gives me pause.  (I find it hard to believe the company fired Catazaro casually--just as I don't believe ABT opened an investigation into Gomes casually. But if they did, then it appears we are likely to find out through arbitration...)

Regarding the Kaufman piece: I would love to see Balanchine era dancers like Farrell etc. back at the State Theater. One of the best things the interim team has done is bring in Villella, McBride, and Baryshnikov to work with the dancers on roles they created. But as a response to this particular crisis...it's a bit of a head-scratcher for me. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by Drew
to make it less absolute...

[Pique Arabesque]

1 hour ago, fondoffouettes said:

Neither Waterbury nor NYCB has accused Catazaro of trading nude photos of colleagues. I’m agnostic when it comes to Catazaro as an artist, but I feel it’s important to consider the facts as they’ve been presented.

According to the NYT, Catazaro has said that he didn't share images of Waterbury, but took part in "communications" that were not intended to "harm or embarrass." That language is deliberately ambiguous but implies that the communications were NSFW and might open him up to some scrutiny.

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

 

In the complaint it states  that,  "Plaintiff ALEXANDRA WATERBURY is a nineteen year-old ballet dancer and a former  student at defendant NEW YORK CITY BALLET, INC.",  which is untrue.  While she has studied for some time and appears quite accomplished,  she does not earn a living dancing.  What would be wrong with stating she's a twenty year old model and college student?  Nothing,  but it doesn't  bolster the image of her as a work colleague of dancers at NYCB.

Nowhere in the complaint is it claimed that Ms. Waterbury  and Mr. Finlay  began their relationship  while she was a student at SAB,  whatever her age at the time.  No way would that little detail have been left out if it had happened.  

It's a personal relationship  issue because it's between two individuals who do not work together.  She has never been a member or a student of the NYCB.  Where she went to school is irrelevant,  as is the claim that they "met at the NYCB".   They could have met anywhere,  it doesn't  make them work colleagues.

There was no legal duty for Catazaro to intervene in Finlay's activities.  If the complaint seems like "the tip of the iceberg" it's because it's expertly constructed to make you feel that way.  You're right about Ramasar and Catazaro rebounding from this.  They will,  but they shouldn't have to.  They will have a hard time matching the salary they were paid at NYCB,  unless they snag a regular spot on a TV series.  (It could happen.)

I will let the courts sort out the specifics of Waterbury's claim. I used the "iceberg" language because it contains multiple damning accusations that extend beyond Finlay and Waterbury. SAB is not the NYCB, but it is under the NYCB umbrella. While there might not be a legal duty for Catazaro to intervene, it could be argued that there was a moral one. Many people have been fired for less.  There is a desire to pin this all on Finlay (and Waterbury for stirring the pot) and absolve Ramasar, Catazaro, and the NYCB, but I am not convinced that the firings are a massive outrage. If Ramasar and Catazaro were involved in wrongdoing, they should face consequences.

50 minutes ago, KayDenmark said:

I can't speak for others, but this wasn't what I was implying. As I'm not a lawyer, I was questioning the admissibility of evidence (particularly in a criminal case, but also in civil circumstances) of evidence that may have been obtained without consent.

If Finlay gave Miss Waterbury permission to use his computer to check her own emails, that's presumably the limit of the consent he gave her. I doubt he gave her consent to go through Finlay's own emails or old texts, or to take screen shots of them, which I presume is what she showed her lawyer.

Could someone here with a legal background explain if evidence like this is admissible in court?

To me, it sounds like a parallel to inviting a private citizen to my home, installing him in the living room, and then finding out that while I was in the kitchen making the tea he was going into other rooms and opening drawers to collect evidence.

I know that cops aren't allowed to do this without a warrant, but what about private citizens?

If Finlay gave Waterbury his password, it's very likely that the texts automatically popped up on his home screen as soon she logged in. 

[Pique Arabesque]

1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

Speaking of so-called company culture,  in the complaint,  it is mentioned that other male dancers tried to persuade Finlay of the error of his ways,  and that what he was doing was wrong.  The names of these men are not disclosed.  They studied and worked in the same environment as Finlay.  What is it about NYCB that caused them to exhibit good morals but not Finlay?  Nothing!  This is not a ballet issue,  it's a personal issue.

Good for those men! However, if senior management allows the Finlays to flourish, then it does become a company issue.

[On Pointe]

Piqué Arabesque said:   if Finlay gave Waterbury his password, it's very likely that the texts automatically popped up on his home screen as soon she logged in. 

It was Finlay's computer.  Wouldn't he know about that feature?  I would question the claim that he allowed Ms. Waterbury  access to his computer for that very reason.

It's a shame that real people and their careers are being shredded (and I include Ms. Waterbury)  because,  from a legal and intellectual point of view,  this is a fascinating case.  There might even be a Constitutional question as to an employee's rights regarding the expectation of privacy in personal communications.

 

[Pique Arabesque]

13 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Piqué Arabesque said:   if Finlay gave Waterbury his password, it's very likely that the texts automatically popped up on his home screen as soon she logged in. 

It was Finlay's computer.  Wouldn't he know about that feature?  I would question the claim that he allowed Ms. Waterbury  access to his computer for that very reason.

It's a shame that real people and their careers are being shredded (and I include Ms. Waterbury)  because,  from a legal and intellectual point of view,  this is a fascinating case.  There might even be a Constitutional question as to an employee's rights regarding the expectation of privacy in personal communications.

 

He probably knew about the feature, but just didn't care. Or didn't think that *those* texts would pop up. I don't see any reason to suspect that she was snooping around.

[Helene]

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I was in transit, and responding at length without a mouse and keyboard is a no-go for me.

9 hours ago, Longtimelurker said:

Then I am confused. I assumed that discussing her possible motives was within the rules of this board as it is something that has been discussed and not deleted. My response was not related to what is allowed by the rules on this board but rather whether discussing it was something that added substantively to the topic. I think that since her lawyer and the media have mischaracterized her relationship with the company that she has chosen to sue, her motives for both suing the company and why that relationship was not accurately reported is something worthy of discussion. Apologies if that or anything else I have said is against the rules of this board.

In the thread, following that discussion of motive is the assertion that, unless the court makes her motivations an issue, or the court allows defendants to do so, her motives are irrelevant to the case.  So unless the court does this, or ballet professionals discuss her motives in public-facing media, or it is discussed in the NYT, it does not add substantially to the topic.  

By asking for financial damages, she has revealed the goal of her lawsuit. 

That she felt she had to explain to anyone but a court how her life was diminished is unfortunate and sad.   People don't have to be destroyed and 100% non-functional, or be institutionalized or driven to suicide, by their trauma to have their life be severely diminished.  

 

9 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

4. Waterbury first discovered the images in May, and went public in September. She and her team likely spent the entire summer trying to build the strongest case possible. 

To clarify some of the timing, Waterbury or her attorney submitted some communications to NYCB in June and asked for a settlement, which NYCB refused.  (Which communications were not disclosed.) The Company's decision to suspend Catazaro and Ramasar and their statement that they were not able to reach Finlay before he resigned came in late August.  By refusing to settle, the Company knew there was a risk of a lawsuit, and that the complaint would be part of the public record.  She went public in September, after the company announced their decision and declared that they weren't responsible for the dancers' actions. 

 

2 hours ago, On Pointe said:

It was Finlay's computer.  Wouldn't he know about that feature?  I would question the claim that he allowed Ms. Waterbury  access to his computer for that very reason.

He likely knew about the feature.  Whether he thought about it isn't known.   If the quotes in the complaint attributed to him are accurate, neither careful nor intelligent is an adjective I'd use to describe him.

 

8 hours ago, fordhambae said:

This seems correct, there was never any allegation that other individuals photos were shared without their knowledge, that is just the presumption based on the lawsuit. If this is the case, would those terminations (other than Mr. Finlay) be considered unjust? Perhaps this is why the union stated they seek to arbitrate the matter for the other's involved.

It is more than an assumption:  it is an allegation in the lawsuit, from 61:

Quote

There are text messages between Mr. Finlay and Ballet Principal, Mr. Ramasar, during which Mr. Finlay acknowledges that these women who were unknowingly and unlawfully photographed "might be a little pissed" because they were "taking it to the level of showing each other pictures of other women."

The Company said it received communications and did an investigation and disciplined the dancers based on the investigation, which they announced on August 28.  They did not make their determination based on the lawsuit, which wasn't filed until eight days later, although, presumably, there is at least some overlap between what was submitted to NYCB and what is described in the complaint.

Since it's not the case, nor is the concept of "just," that is not why terminating Ramasar and Catazaro would be taken up by the union.  AGMA has said it would go to arbitration because they don't think the Company has the right, contractually, to fire the dancers for actions taken outside the workplace.  It has said nothing about the dancers getting due process or whether the investigation was conducted fairly or accurately.

 

7 hours ago, bcash said:

People don't know Waterbury. As of now nothing is proved in a court of law, nothing that suggests the firing is fully justified. 

The firings are separate from the lawsuit, and court of law is irrelevant, unless/until the dancers sue the Company.  Assuming AGMA forces arbitration, it will be the arbitrator who decides whether the Company has the right to fire the dancers  The arbitrator likely will not decide whether the investigation was accurate or whether the dancers did what they are accused of doing.

 

6 hours ago, On Pointe said:

There are at least two dancers named in the complaint - for no good reason - who are exposed to the public because of the complaint itself,  not because of anything Finlay,  Ramasar or Catazaro did.

There are no other dancers exposed by name in the complaint: the only other person exposed in the complaint is a former SAB student, Craig Hall.   There are various references to "Principal Dancer," but no names given.

 

10 hours ago, On Pointe said:

I was referring to a specific hypothetical situation.  If you are about to rehearse or perform a lift with someone who is so inebriated that you doubt their ability to handle you safely,  you must speak up.  I am not talking about interactions where there is any ambiguity about what is going on.  (In those cases I would keep a journal and inform at least two other people as to what was happening.)  When air passengers spotted pilots drinking right before a flight,  they didn't stop to consider if the pilots might lose their jobs.  (They did.)  That's an extreme example but I hope it helps to make my intent more clear.

The complaint states that Jon Stafford "frequently asked Mr. Finlay about his partying and alcohol use because he smelled like alcoholic beverages."   It does not say when or where.  But, in any case where a dancer is unable to partner safely for any number of reasons, including injury, illness, cold medicine, lack of sleep, or hangovers, the person holding the rehearsal can either call it off/end it early -- William Forsythe did this in Seattle when Sarah Orza had been up all night with her toddler, and he didn't want her to risk injury -- or rearrange it so the dancer doesn't have to perform something that would endanger themselves or their colleagues.  That is standard operating procedure for a responsible person, however frustrating it is or tight the deadlines.

 

6 hours ago, On Pointe said:

(It's interesting that there are those who readily accept the company's conclusions in this matter,  yet disbelieve the result of its investigation of Peter Martins.) 

These are two very different things:

In the Martins case, the Board hired a lawyer whose job it was to assess risk and exposure to the Company, and all of the media investigations disclosed eyewitness testimony only.  I certainly believe that the results of that assessment was that the company had little risk and exposure. 

In the case of the three dancers, nothing has been disclosed about who was involved in the investigation, but, the Company stated it was based on communications submitted to them, ie, physical evidence, which Waterbury's lawyers would still have copies of, and he said/she said or disputes over the credibility of the communications were unlikely, and they concluded that three dancers deserved to be disciplined based on those communications.  When they decided to up the suspensions to firing Catazaro and Ramasar, and disclosed that they were planning to fire Finlay from the beginning, they would have known from experience that there was a great risk that AGMA would take them to arbitration over it. 

 

10 hours ago, On Pointe said:

We don't  even know what Catazaro is accused of.  It might not even be sexual in nature - maybe he wrote something like,  "The Koch Brothers suck!".  A few years ago a company member expressed something similar on social media,  got spanked for it and prompted the company to come up with a formal social  media  policy.  None of the accused dancers put objectionable photos of women on their personal social media accounts.

NYCB said that the investigation was done based on communications submitted by or on behalf of Waterbury. The complaint says that Catazaro both sent to and received photos from Finlay.

It would be quite odd if the source of the communications with photos (and videos), who claims there were such communications involving Catazaro, did not submit these, but instead submitted communications from Catazaro about unrelated, but incriminating content. 

What the complaint did not disclose is whose images were included in Catazaro's communications.

 

 

[KayDenmark]

8 hours ago, Pique Arabesque said:

He probably knew about the feature, but just didn't care. Or didn't think that *those* texts would pop up. I don't see any reason to suspect that she was snooping around.

I'm the owner of both a MacBook and an iPhone.

Assuming you are signed in with your Apple ID, the most recent text sent by you or someone else pops up on a MacBook. If you have a text window open, you can also see other messages from that most recent conversation - right now on my laptop, for example, you can see about 10 lines of back-and-forth text between my teenage daughter and I. It's visible to anyone who opens my laptop.

What's not visible, however, is what happened before or after those 10 lines. My text messages with other friends and family are also not visible, except for their names and the first few words of the message in a column off to the side. ("Thanks! It was a pleasure to have you join us" is about the length we're looking at.)

So yeah, in order to capture any more information than those 10 lines and names, someone would have to actively pursue that information by clicking and scrolling around. 

My question still stands, though: did Finlay authorize Waterbury to do anything on his computer beyond check her own email?

If he didn't, is the information she was not authorized to collect admissible in civil or criminal court? 

 

[yukionna4869]

2 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

 

If he didn't, is the information she was not authorized to collect admissible in civil or criminal court? 

 

It likely is. She doesn’t have the same constraints as the government.

Finlay has a 4th amendment right to not have unreasonable searches and seizures from the government. 

Edited September 17, 2018 by yukionna4869

[fondoffouettes]

A snapshot of Ramasar’s supporters, from Harrison Ball’s Instagram.