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

Thank you, Drew. I couldn’t agree more. As someone who has personally has been through sexual violence, it hurts all over again when I read comments that could be misconstrued to suggest that Ms. Waterbury is the one causing problems. She did not do this. And if she feels that the actions taken by several men at NYCB were a result of an atmosphere that allowed these men to think they were above reprimand then she has every right to sue the company, School and anyone else she feels contributed in some way. This does not mean the court will agree, but she still has the right. She is the victim here as are the other women whose photos were shared without their knowledge or consent. I do not think the lawsuit’s goal is to ‘take down NYCB’. Otherwise the scope would be set quite a bit larger. If we are all now making assumptions on her motives this is mine, as it would be what I would be thinking in her place:

in her head, regardless what her attorny’s motives might be, perhaps she is naming both the school and company in the complaint to force a change in the status quo. To finally call out the atmosphere of demoralizing women in order to force NYCB’s hand to make real change and not just do lip service. 

 

The one good thing that has come from this is that it has opened some major discussions in ballet schools and companies all across the US. I think that many finally realized just how far this all has gone and really does need to be addressed instead of brushing it under the rug. Finally things are out in the open to the degree that it can no longer be ignored.

 

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, abatt said:

 If and when NYCB wins and gets the case dismissed, they should send a press release touting the victory to every news outlet in existence.

At the same time, they might be wise as well as compassionate not to be seen as attacking Waterbury or taking her suffering lightly.

40 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

She is trying to get money. Look at Merson's case records https://mersonlaw.com/

He doesn't care about changing culture, he cares about making HUGE money... and guess who has the money here.... not Finlay!

As an aside I can't help reflecting that  if I were Finlay I would rather be sued than face criminal charges that could land me in prison. But that's just me. 

As far as your point goes--yes lawyers take these cases for money and NYCB has money. As it happens, in our society anyway, money awards in lawsuits and/or settlements have proven to be one way to get institutions to look at themselves and change...in this case it may be a non-issue if the case is thrown out and/or a case goes forward and shows no change is needed.  But it might not be and statements made by  Bouder and Lovette, as well as the company's decision to fire Catazaro and Ramasar (however that gets resolved) suggest that not all the dancers are treating it as a non-issue even if they want to defend the company as an institution, which they surely do.

In any case, in our system of law wanting to "get money" is a legitimate way of seeking redress, even as saying someone wants to "get money" is sometimes used as a way to discredit them. To me it's more than believable that Waterbury sees her case as a case about NYCB and not just Finlay even if she is wrong.  And cases involving sexual issues are incredibly painful for victims to go through. The vast majority of victims in these cases do not take any legal action lightly or merely greedily--it's just too hard and too humiliating.  In fact I assume motives in most lawsuits are complex -- I said that above...and I have no problem with that.

NYCB in all this? I just don't share the view that several have expressed that it's obvious they bear no responsibility. Even if it's not a legal responsibility (which courts will decide): if an organization does an in-house investigation and finds that THREE of their top people are involved in behavior that is judged to be problematic, then I own it's very hard for me to take it as simply given nothing more is going on... that, say in this case, it's no more than one bad apple plus two slightly oxygenated ones...

Fraildove posted just as I was wrapping up my typing...I think s/he puts some of these issues more eloquently than I do, but I will go ahead and post...

 

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Drew said:

 Even if it's not a legal responsibility (which courts will decide): if an organization does an in-house investigation and finds that THREE of their top people are involved in behavior that is judged to be problematic, then I own it's very hard for me to take it as simply given nothing more is going on... that, say in this case, it's no more than one bad apple plus two slightly oxygenated ones... 

The company suspended them before this lawsuit was filed as well as releasing a statement saying that Merson had come for them asking for a settlement, which they had declined.

The aftermath of the lawsuit, as well as now implicating the school in the lawsuit as an additional defendant, has undoubtedly caused massive representational damages to the company (donors complaining, ticket sales etc) and as for the school, I can only imagine the concerns of student parents as well as future parents sending their children to the school.

 I don't doubt that all of this was an attempt at trying to get the company to buckle for a big cash settlement.

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Fraildove said:

Thank you, Drew. I couldn’t agree more. As someone who has personally has been through sexual violence, it hurts all over again when I read comments that could be misconstrued to suggest that Ms. Waterbury is the one causing problems. She did not do this. And if she feels that the actions taken by several men at NYCB were a result of an atmosphere that allowed these men to think they were above reprimand then she has every right to sew the company, School and anyone else she feels contributed in some way. This does not mean the court will agree, but she still has the right. She is the victim here as are the other women whose photos were shared without their knowledge or consent. I do not think the lawsuit’s goal is to ‘take down NYCB’. Otherwise the scope would be set quite a bit larger. If we are all now making assumptions on her motives this is mine, as it would be what I would be thinking in her place:

in her head, regardless what her attorny’s motives might be, perhaps she is naming both the school and company in the complaint to force a change in the status quo. To finally call out the atmosphere of demoralizing women in order to force NYCB’s hand to make real change and not just do lip service.

 

Where is there any evidence that NYCB or SAB are in the business of demoralizing women?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, On Pointe said:

Where is there any evidence that NYCB or SAB are in the business of demoralizing women?

That wasn't said: "In her head, regardless what her attorny’s motives might be, perhaps she is naming both the school and company in the complaint to force a change in the status quo. To finally call out the atmosphere of demoralizing women in order to force NYCB’s hand to make real change and not just do lip service."

Link to comment
1 hour ago, TripleAxel61 said:

That wasn't said: "In her head, regardless what her attorny’s motives might be, perhaps she is naming both the school and company in the complaint to force a change in the status quo. To finally call out the atmosphere of demoralizing women in order to force NYCB’s hand to make real change and not just do lip service."

If any school or institution has the ability to change the "atmosphere of demoralizing women",  given that it is an intrinsic part of much of male-female relations,  they should convey their method to the world.  It occurs in the lowest rungs of society all the way to Congress,  the White House,  the Catholic Church,  the military,  the Ivy League and the Supreme Court,  to name just a few.  It's ironic that male ballet dancers,  who actually get to handle female bodies as a part of their job,  still get aroused by photos of women,  like most other men.  That's hard wired and not going to change.  What can change is the socialization that makes some men,  like Finlay,  believe they are entitled to use a woman's body as they wish.  But that socialization starts in the home,  long before boys get to the ballet studio.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, TripleAxel61 said:

That wasn't said: "In her head, regardless what her attorny’s motives might be, perhaps she is naming both the school and company in the complaint to force a change in the status quo. To finally call out the atmosphere of demoralizing women in order to force NYCB’s hand to make real change and not just do lip service."

If Waterbury can inspire that kind of change, we might be seeing the balletic equivalent, in terms of impact, of the Libby Zion case.  That case changed the rules about how many consecutive hours medical residents are allowed to be on call.  The New York State medical establishment reevaluated and restructured their training programs.  Her father Sidney Zion was the force leading to the systemic reforms. His NY Times obituary provides a brief summary of the events leading too and resulting from his daughter's death.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/nyregion/03zion.html

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Drew said:

As an aside I can't help reflecting that  if I were Finlay I would rather be sued than face criminal charges that could land me in prison. But that's just me. 

 

 

The two are not mutually exclusive, and one may be a prelude to the other, and even a point of leverage in the first.

Link to comment

I doubt Finlay would "land in prison" for a first offense. But if a conviction would put him on the sex offenders' register, that would have a much bigger impact on his life. Not only would he be unable to teach ballet - or teach anything to people under 18 - but he would also be restricted in where he would be allowed to live.  And in many places, the sex offender registry has no end-date: once you're on, you don't get off. This is a very potent weapon for Miss Waterbury. 

Link to comment

On Pointe,

Again, if you reread my post I said ‘maybe in her head’, meaning her opinion. Obviously she feels like there is evidence that makes NYCB culpable. And it is her right to file a suit. It is the court that decides if there is anything in the lawsuit that can move on to the next phase after it is filed. She doesn’t need to prove anything to us. She technically doesn’t need any proof to file a suit although it would be difficult to get an attorney who works on contingency to do so without some evedience. But the key word in my statement was in her head. I never once said whether or not I think NYCB is responsible. This was a hypothetical reasoning like so many of your examples. As I said in my post, if I were in her position, and felt that this happened because of a bigger problem, I would name what I felt to be the bigger problem and try and get some real change in the company.

 

In my own experience as a professional dancer what Ma Waterbury is claiming is not too far out of the norm from what my own experiences were. The enormous power that AD’s and School directors have, the influence that principals have over newer and younger dancers, the feeling that because boys/men are a precious commodity that they could literally do as they pleased without fear of reprimand due to their status where if a female student or dancer was to do anything similar they would be kicked out of the school/company. Just curious what your own experiences were like. And if I misinterpreted in my thought that you might have been a professional ballet dancer then I apologize.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, lmspear said:

If Waterbury can inspire that kind of change, we might be seeing the balletic equivalent, in terms of impact, of the Libby Zion case.  That case changed the rules about how many consecutive hours medical residents are allowed to be on call.  The New York State medical establishment reevaluated and restructured their training programs.  Her father Sidney Zion was the force leading to the systemic reforms. His NY Times obituary provides a brief summary of the events leading too and resulting from his daughter's death.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/nyregion/03zion.html

 

I remember the Libby Zion case well,  as the trial was televised on Court TV.  While it brought about welcome changes in the training of new physicians,  what was most memorable to me was how it consumed the lives of not just her father but her brothers as well.  Their various legal actions,  that went on for years,  were attempts primarily to punish the doctors and the hospital where Libby was treated.    They even tried to get the doctors indicted for murder.  Concern for the well being of overworked interns was not the family's motivation.  They wanted revenge,  which they never got as all of the doctors involved retained the ability to practice medicine.

In the Waterbury  case,  nobody died,  no one was battered,  and all of the sex was consensual.  It doesn't  meet the criteria for "revenge porn".  Finlay was a cad and a boor,  but it's  highly unlikely that there will be any criminal charges.  This is a private dispute that Merson is trying to make institutional.  There is nothing any school or company can do that will stop consenting adults,  or minors,  from having sex,  and sexual relationships always have the potential of going sideways and hurting the participants.

A company-wide seminar on sexual harassment,  and warning against the making and sharing of intimate images is an excellent idea.  But it wasn't  the culture of the ballet studio that brought Ms. Waterbury  to grief.  It was Chase Finlay.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

In the Waterbury  case,  nobody died,  no one was battered,  and all of the sex was consensual.  It doesn't  meet the criteria for "revenge porn".  Finlay was a cad and a boor,  but it's  highly unlikely that there will be any criminal charges.  This is a private dispute that Merson is trying to make institutional.  There is nothing any school or company can do that will stop consenting adults,  or minors,  from having sex,  and sexual relationships always have the potential of going sideways and hurting the participants.

 

Also "there is nothing any school or company can do that will stop consenting adults,  or minors,  from having sex" is a ridiculous argument. Of course there isn't. And no law is going to stop all robberies, murders or rapes either (people are still going to do all those things!), but that doesn't mean we say OH WELL! and not have or enforce these laws.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Fraildove said:

On Pointe,

Again, if you reread my post I said ‘maybe in her head’, meaning her opinion. Obviously she feels like there is evidence that makes NYCB culpable. And it is her right to file a suit. It is the court that decides if there is anything in the lawsuit that can move on to the next phase after it is filed. She doesn’t need to prove anything to us. She technically doesn’t need any proof to file a suit although it would be difficult to get an attorney who works on contingency to do so without some evedience. But the key word in my statement was in her head. I never once said whether or not I think NYCB is responsible. This was a hypothetical reasoning like so many of your examples. As I said in my post, if I were in her position, and felt that this happened because of a bigger problem, I would name what I felt to be the bigger problem and try and get some real change in the company.

 

In my own experience as a professional dancer what Ma Waterbury is claiming is not too far out of the norm from what my own experiences were. The enormous power that AD’s and School directors have, the influence that principals have over newer and younger dancers, the feeling that because boys/men are a precious commodity that they could literally do as they pleased without fear of reprimand due to their status where if a female student or dancer was to do anything similar they would be kicked out of the school/company. Just curious what your own experiences were like. And if I misinterpreted in my thought that you might have been a professional ballet dancer then I apologize.

I was a ballet dancer and one time member of AGMA,  but I spent most of my career performing on Broadway.  I have observed preferential treatment given to male dancers over female dancers in ballet,  although that may not be as prevalent now that there are many more men in the profession.  There was also preferential treatment for thinner dancers,  dancers with the highest extensions,  dancers with the best feet,  dancers with the prettiest faces.  In an aesthetic art form,  some will be preferred and valued over others.

Company and school directors wield enormous power because it's necessary for the running of the institutions.  Bosses are bosses on every job.  (During the recent action against sexual harassment  at McDonald's,  women workers described how male managers had such power over their lives that some routinely demanded sex from them during their shift if they requested so much as a schedule change.  And all they're doing is selling hamburgers.)  In artistic institutions,  like symphony orchestras and ballet companies,  where there are many more talented artists than there are jobs,  the power of the bosses to make or break a career is overwhelming,  but there seems no remedy for that,  except to demand that their actions be transparent with some semblance of fairness.

Ms. Waterbury  is angry at Chase Finlay and she's taken action against him,  rightly so.  

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, aurora said:

 

Also "there is nothing any school or company can do that will stop consenting adults,  or minors,  from having sex" is a ridiculous argument. Of course there isn't. And no law is going to stop all robberies, murders or rapes either (people are still going to do all those things!), but that doesn't mean we say OH WELL! and not have or enforce these laws.

Sex between consenting adults is not against the law.  Sexual attraction can not be regulated.  If you have any suggestions as to how a ballet school can stop female students from swooning over handsome company stars please put them forth.  What do you think NYCB and SAB should be doing that will prevent any more Waterbury  situations?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, aurora said:

Um. what? It is not intrinsic.

It is pervasive but your argument seems to be therefore that no change is needed or wanted. 

Change is both needed and wanted by women,  but there is no greater illustration of the imbalance between men and women in our culture than the spectacle of the Senate Judiciary Committee preparing to treat Christine Blasey  Ford exactly the way they treated Anita Hill over twenty years ago.  Some of the same guys will be doing the probing.  Men like lording  it over women.

Edited by On Pointe
Typo
Link to comment

Sexual attraction can't be regulated, but I don't see any argument that it should.

Sexual behavior can be and is regularly regulated by legislatures and institutions, including schools.  By allowing or not creating the opportunities for two groups to work and train together under their auspices, for example, they weigh in on one or the other side of the trade-off.  That doesn't stop prohibited relationships from happening, nor could it be expected to do so. It signals and can enforce expected norms.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, On Pointe said:

I

Ms. Waterbury  is angry at Chase Finlay and she's taken action against him,  rightly so.  

Yes, her claim is against Finlay, and potentially against any of his friends who also distributed her image after receiving it from Finlay. SAB and NYCB are in the suit because they have deep pockets.  Hopefully the institutions will be dismissed from the suit.  If and when that happens, Waterbury's chance of collecting her damages from Finlay may be an uphill battle.  He comes from a wealthy family, but their wealth is not his wealth.  He is an unemployed student at the moment.  

If any members of the company were her friends, I'm not sure they still are. By embarrassing members of the company such as Alexa Maxwell and others by repeating the stories she has heard or says she has heard, all she has done is treat other women poorly.  For someone who holds herself out as a representative of "me too",  Waterbury has not done any of these women in the company a service.  

Link to comment

We've been through this before:  stop the speculation on her motives that haven't already been established: if a court decides they are relevant to the lawsuit, then they become relevant for the discussion.

What is public-facing and official news, mostly through the lawsuit, is that she's asking for monetary damages and has chosen not to take (at least some) other people's and institutions' interests above her own to the extent to which the lawsuit and interviews disclose what she's chosen to disclose. 

If a ballet professional comments publicly, or if there is a mainstream media article that discusses her motivations, that information can be discussed here. 

Until then, from the point of view of discussion here, she can be assumed to have acted in what she believes is her own interest, just as NYCB can be assumed to acted in what NYCB believes to be their own interest.

 

 

Link to comment

On Pointe,

That is really interesting, your background. I also had a friend who transitioned from Principal dancer to Broadway and I think it is very fascinating. I know it is off topic here, but maybe one day you could compare and Co trust your experiences in both areas. I would love to hear about both.

 

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, On Pointe said:

In the Waterbury  case,  nobody died,  no one was battered,  and all of the sex was consensual.  It doesn't  meet the criteria for "revenge porn". 

It's been mentioned several times above, but it's worth reiterating that 'revenge porn' laws target the unlawful dissemination of sexual/intimate images (i.e. disseminating images of a subject without obtaining explicit consent to disseminate those images). This can happen even if the sex was consensual.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, abatt said:

Yes, her claim is against Finlay, and potentially against any of his friends who also distributed her image after receiving it from Finlay. SAB and NYCB are in the suit because they have deep pockets.  Hopefully the institutions will be dismissed from the suit.  If and when that happens, Waterbury's chance of collecting her damages from Finlay may be an uphill battle.  He comes from a wealthy family, but their wealth is not his wealth.  He is an unemployed student at the moment.  

If any members of the company were her friends, I'm not sure they still are. By intentionally embarrassing members of the company such as Alexa Maxwell and others by repeating the stories she has heard or says she has heard, all she has done is treat other women poorly.  For someone who holds herself out as a representative of "me too",  Waterbury has not done any of these women in the company a service.  .

If anyone embarrassed Maxwell, it was Ramasar, who sent her nude photo to his friends. It would be a shame to punish whistleblowers for attempting to hold institutions and the people in them accountable. SAB and NYCB are in the lawsuit because they are alleged to have turned the other cheek to their male dancers'/patrons' bad behavior. Longhitano's drunken rant and Finlay's DC party (and showing up to rehearsals drunk) all occurred on the clock and were allegedly swept under the rug. Historically, Balanchine's attempt to force Farrell's hand in marriage, Martins' dalliances with then-underage dancers (and the domestic violence incident) have shown that NYCB has not been the safest place for women historically - and all of those events happened before Waterbury was even born.

Though Finlay is currently unemployed, family wealth is passed on generationally. 

Also, NYCB is an enormously powerful arts institution with a large endowment. If it survived the death of Balanchine and the departure of Martins, it will survive this. No one person is going to "bring them down." 

And no one is trying to police male sexuality - if Finlay, Catazaro, and Ramasar wanted to talk about how hot Jennifer Lawrence is, that would be their business. The issue was the nonconsensual distribution of photos and the company that allegedly overlooked it.

Link to comment
On 9/22/2018 at 2:24 PM, On Pointe said:

It seems that,  as far as the mainstream media is concerned,  the NYCB story doesn't have legs (pardon the pun).  Could be because the Kavanaugh  nomination is so critical to the nation,  and fraught with drama,  that it's driven other sexual misconduct stories off the radar.  Meanwhile I've had time to go over the amended complaint and I have to ask those who genuinely believe that firing Zachary Catazaro  was justified:  why?

Catazaro did not take photos of the complainant,  apparently did not see them or share them,  and he was the previously unnamed male principal who refused to participate in Chase Finlay's sexual harassment  schemes.  His greatest sin appears to be sharing a photo of a woman's breasts where that woman's face is not visible.  That,  and a couple of texts using language that,  while crude,  can be heard on every street corner in the US.  None of this was intended to be public.  After that descriptive passage,  Catazaro is barely mentioned.  For that he loses his career?  It doesn't  seem fair or proportionate punishment to me.

If Catazaro  had been a problematic employee in the past,  it would have been known to NYCB management long before the Waterbury case.  So unless he's got a body in a fridge somewhere,  why was he fired when,  as alleged in the complaint,  dancers who were involved in domestic violence and rape were not?  I could be wrong of course,  but I predict that AGMA will recommend  he be reinstated,  with back pay.  I'm interested in hearing other views.

Catazaro's language was more than crude, though. According to the amended complaint, he and Finlay engaged in an extended back and forth where they fantasized about raping a corps member (Finlay specifically used the language "give her no choice"). I don't know if NYCB has any character/behavior clauses in their dancer contracts, but conversations like that would probably fall under that umbrella. An NYCB job is an enormous privilege - not a right - and I imagine that dancers are expected to elevate themselves beyond "street corner" talk. And this is not unprecedented - a few years ago, several incoming Harvard first-years lost their places at the university when racist group chat messages that circulated among them were discovered. (And if you don't want something to be public, you shouldn't put in in print.)

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...