Jump to content
abatt

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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, nanushka said:

Yes, everyone — including pornographic film actors!

Yes Nanushka, entirely correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rkoretzky said:

And that matters why? 30, 40, 50... everyone has an right to privacy and to the expectation that if they refuse to participate in something that refusal will be honored. 

These aren’t porn stars. They are  women who happen to work as ballet dancers. 

I'm not talking about privacy, I'm talking about context.

In the same way that anyone reading this could be refereed to as 'former infant'. The use of infant is misleading if they are 40 years old and this happened yesterday.  The use of 'former SAB students' was only used to tie the connection between the company and the school.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, rkoretzky said:

And that matters why? 30, 40, 50... everyone has an right to privacy and to the expectation that if they refuse to participate in something that refusal will be honored. 

These aren’t porn stars. They are  women who happen to work as ballet dancers. 

It matters big time.  Many of SAB's students are young children.  Distributing salacious photos of them could be considered trafficking in child pornography,  a serious Federal crime which can land perpetrators in prison for many years.  No one is making that accusation.

Share this post


Link to post

The only three people I can find in the complaint who are referred to as "former SAB student" are one woman whose photo from when she was 18 (according to the text) was sent/received, and two men who either received or received/distributed/commented, for whom the description distinguishes him from a member of the interim team.  

Since the subjects of the photos are described, with one exception ("girl or woman")* and none of them are described as under-aged, and the only two former SAB students described are the one above and Waterbury, I fail to see how this is in any way misleading or an implication that undescribed students had their images shared.

*The only one that the complaint seems to protect by deliberate vagueness.  There is a NYCB member whom Finlay said was having protected sex as a student, but they did not have images of her.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Helene said:

I fail to see how this is in any way misleading

 

One of your readers wrote "Students, too? I'm sick to my stomach."

It can easily become misconstrued, especially in the media to make the public believe that underage persons were victims in this lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

It matters big time.  Many of SAB's students are young children.  Distributing salacious photos of them could be considered trafficking in child pornography,  a serious Federal crime which can land perpetrators in prison for many years.  No one is making that accusation.

Right, no one. Including me. I was addressing the point that it matters not one bit whether someone is 18 or approaching 30, 40 or 80 for that matter. All adults have a right to and an expectation of privacy. 

Edited by rkoretzky

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

It can easily become misconstrued, especially in the media to make the public believe that underage persons were victims in this lawsuit.

If it is misconstrued, that's hardly proof that...

1 hour ago, fordhambae said:

The lawsuit was written deliberately to invoke this exact response.

As @Helene points out, the use of the phrase is pretty clear in context. The lawyer can hardly be blamed if people misread — and even if he should've been clearer, that doesn't mean his failure to be so was ill-intentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, nanushka said:

that doesn't mean his failure to be so was ill-intentioned.

 I would argue that every action he is taking is a very well planned strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

One of your readers wrote "Students, too? I'm sick to my stomach."

It can easily become misconstrued, especially in the media to make the public believe that underage persons were victims in this lawsuit.

 

I wrote that quote, see below:

 

22 hours ago, ABT Fan said:

OK, I've read part of the amended version (honestly, I skimmed a lot of the legal jargon).

Students, too?

I'm sick to my stomach. 

Happy opening night.

 

I misinterpreted that in the complaint.

My other sentence, which was a separate thought, "I'm sick to my stomach", still stands in regards to everything the defendants are accused of.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ABT Fan said:

I misinterpreted that in the complaint.

Right but they aren't students are they. They're former students.

Share this post


Link to post

And they are identified individually as "former SAB student"s in the complaint, in addition to Waterbury, whether victims or perpetrators.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Right but they aren't students are they. They're former students.

No one is disputing that. Including the text of the complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

 I would argue that every action he is taking is a very well planned strategy.

And you may be right. My point was that you’ve as yet offered no real evidence to accompany your argument, making it a mere assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, nanushka said:

And you may be right. My point was that you’ve as yet offered no real evidence to accompany your argument, making it a mere assertion.

1) Files lawsuit against the company days after the company takes action to suspended individuals and announce another retires.

2) Adds defendants to lawsuit only after the company takes additional action to terminate the suspended.

3) Adds donor's name to lawsuit, which they've known all along and had the individuals texts of from the beginning.

4) Adds school to lawsuit as a separate entity after previously claiming the school and company are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

1) Files lawsuit against the company days after the company takes action to suspended individuals and announce another retires.

2) Adds defendants to lawsuit only after the company takes additional action to terminate the suspended.

3) Adds donor's name to lawsuit, which they've known all along and had the individuals texts of from the beginning.

4) Adds school to lawsuit as a separate entity after previously claiming the school and company are the same.

I fail to see how any of that is relevant to the question of whether (as you asserted) “the lawsuit was written deliberately to invoke [evoke] this exact response” — i.e. the confusion of “student” and “former student.”

Also, for (1) and (2) the company may well have had a heads up that the lawsuit/changes were coming, thus provoking their action. Your argument relies on the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy.

Edited by nanushka

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, nanushka said:

I fail to see how any of that is relevant to the question of whether (as you asserted) “the lawsuit was written deliberately to invoke [evoke] this exact response” — ie the confusion of “student” and “former student.”

My apologies, I thought you were responding to a different message I wrote.

 The lawsuit states that the school had a duty to safeguard Miss. Waterbury and other women from Chase Finlay etc, asserting that these men were, as Mr. Merson stated "using as a hunting ground". Do we have proof of when they met and how they met and was she a former student at the time? 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

My apologies, I thought you were responding to a different message I wrote.

...

Do we have proof of when they met and how they met and was she a former student at the time? 

No problem, sorry for the confusion.

I certainly don’t, but as I understand the process such evidence would typically not be presented until the discovery phase. I assume Waterbury has a lot of evidence — though perhaps not sufficient to support every claim. We’ll see (on not).

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

My apologies, I thought you were responding to a different message I wrote.

 The lawsuit states that the school had a duty to safeguard Miss. Waterbury and other women from Chase Finlay etc, asserting that these men were, as Mr. Merson stated "using as a hunting ground". Do we have proof of when they met and how they met and was she a former student at the time? 

The complaint states that they "met at NYCB",  which a casual reader could reasonably infer that they both worked there,  but they didn't.  She could have been sitting on the fountain or standing on the mezzanine.  If they had met at SAB it would have been included as it bolsters her case.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

1) Files lawsuit against the company days after the company takes action to suspended individuals and announce another retires.

2) Adds defendants to lawsuit only after the company takes additional action to terminate the suspended.

3) Adds donor's name to lawsuit, which they've known all along and had the individuals texts of from the beginning.

4) Adds school to lawsuit as a separate entity after previously claiming the school and company are the same.

And brazenly,  in the amended complaint,  Merson uses the fact that the dancers were suspended and then fired by the company against NYCB.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

1) Files lawsuit against the company days after the company takes action to suspended individuals and announce another retires.

2) Adds defendants to lawsuit only after the company takes additional action to terminate the suspended.

3) Adds donor's name to lawsuit, which they've known all along and had the individuals texts of from the beginning.

4) Adds school to lawsuit as a separate entity after previously claiming the school and company are the same.

Re:  #1: Scharf's statement to the NYT does not say when Merson contacted them to try to negotiate for a settlement.  I suspect they wouldn't have filed the suit until after they received a decision on the settlement, because the main advantage to NYCB would have been to negotiate an NDA and to keep all of this out of the press.  Once the lawsuit was made public, the cat was out of the bag.  In addition, by waiting for the Company's decision, they would have time to evaluate the decision.  They wouldn't have been the only ones to make the point that the Company's initial reaction was too lenient.  When it announced the suspensions, the Company never made the argument that they stopped there -- and they said nothing about any intention of firing Finlay -- because the contract limited them in how they could discipline for off-hours activities.

Re: #2: I'm not sure why the Company's decision to fire would support the legal case, and it is not unusual to add defendants.  There are other reasons besides pure strategy to do so, like finding new information that supports their case.  

Re: #3: I don't know what their reasoning is for deciding whether and when to release anyone's name, but there are many reasons besides simple strategy, like getting more information.

Re: #4: The original complaint conflated SAB and NYCB into one corporate entity, although it was clear they meant both when they mis-identified SAB and NYCB, Inc.  Adding the school separately corrects that mistake.

That said, I would hope that Merson has a good strategy and tactics: his job is not to satisfy anyone's aesthetics, but to get the biggest win for Waterbury and make money and enhance his reputation.  That's usually what professionals do when they have a business.  I don't understand the ins and outs, because the right strategy for trying to obtain a settlement may not be the right strategy for winning a court case, just as NYCB's defense during the arbitration suit may be inconsistent with its defense in the lawsuit, if it goes to trial. 

16 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

The complaint states that they "met at NYCB",  which a casual reader could reasonably infer that they both worked there,  but they didn't.  She could have been sitting on the fountain or standing on the mezzanine.  If they had met at SAB it would have been included as it bolsters her case.

The amended complaint faults the "encourage" and "required" interaction between male NYCB dancers and female SAB students.  I don't know any specifics about how this might work or whether it was at SAB or NYCB, but, presumably, that will come out in discovery and court, if it gets that far. 

I have no idea how specifically the court sticks to the details in the complaint, once it goes to discovery.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Helene said:

The amended complaint faults the "encourage" and "required" interaction between male NYCB dancers and female SAB students.  I don't know any specifics about how this might work or whether it was at SAB or NYCB, but, presumably, that will come out in discovery and court, if it gets that far. 

Do company members participate in rehearsals and partnering classes,  and if they do,  are they volunteers or is it a requirement of their contract?

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Do company members participate in rehearsals and partnering classes,  and if they do,  are they volunteers or is it a requirement of their contract?

 I can't speak to past the past five years or so, but I know that in the past, whenever there was a shortage of males for partnering classes, company members would be asked to attend. This was done in a very informal way, certainly not required. It can be very helpful for students to have company members participate. Yes, girls would be expected to partner with whomever they were told to. Yes, some students are star struck when any company member is in class.  At the same time, if a company member and a teenage student decided to see each other outside of class time, I don't see how that is the fault of SAB. I don't know if Ms. Waterbury was living at the dorm. I have heard that there are strict curfews and a lot of oversight. My understanding about the Waterbury/Finlay relationship is that it started after she left the school. I just want to add that one of the great things about being in a school with a company attached, is that you have a chance to see and work with company members. This is an amazing asset that I would hate to see disrupted. Sara Mearns and Ashley Bouder both have mentioned taking classes at the school, even as principal dancers.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, vipa said:

 I can't speak to past the past five years or so, but I know that in the past, whenever there was a shortage of males for partnering classes, company members would be asked to attend. This was done in a very informal way, certainly not required. It can be very helpful for students to have company members participate. Yes, girls would be expected to partner with whomever they were told to. Yes, some students are star struck when any company member is in class.  At the same time, if a company member and a teenage student decided to see each other outside of class time, I don't see how that is the fault of SAB. I don't know if Ms. Waterbury was living at the dorm. I have heard that there are strict curfews and a lot of oversight. My understanding about the Waterbury/Finlay relationship is that it started after she left the school. I just want to add that one of the great things about being in a school with a company attached, is that you have a chance to see and work with company members. This is an amazing asset that I would hate to see disrupted. Sara Mearns and Ashley Bouder both have mentioned taking classes at the school, even as principal dancers.

Many company members are the same age or just a bit older than advanced students at SAB.  New members would have been recent SAB students anyway,  so it wouldn't be unusual or improper for there to be relationships between them.  While the students may be starstruck and awestruck by their presence,  the company members are not in positions of authority over them.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

Many company members are the same age or just a bit older than advanced students at SAB.  New members would have been recent SAB students anyway,  so it wouldn't be unusual or improper for there to be relationships between them.  While the students may be starstruck and awestruck by their presence,  the company members are not in positions of authority over them.

That's good point, On Pointe. Anyway, I just don't see how SAB or NYCB is at fault if Waterbury and Finlay met at the school.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...