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

That would presumably be what discovery is for.  That is why her lawyer might ask for disciplinary records, insurance records, depositions, law enforcement records, etc.   Once again, the complaint is not meant to provide proof.  

Plus, discretion doesn't appear to be Finlay's forte.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, KayDenmark said:

The secondary question is did she break any privacy laws while obtaining evidence of the (alleged) transgressions against her. Privacy laws might also apply to the other people involved in the conversation with Finlay who did *not* (allegedly) offer her their computer passwords and had no expectation that she would have access to their communications.

I'm curious if you have particular privacy laws in mind here. If so, could you provide some specifics?

Link to comment

I don't, and I'm not a lawyer. 

I'm an American living in Europe, where electronic privacy laws are extremely strict, so perhaps that is coloring my view on this matter. (Example: The New York Daily News, the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times are blocked within the European Union because they don't conform to EU data-collection laws.)

That said, I'm sure New York divorce courts deal with matters of one spouse searching through the other spouse's devices every day, so there must be legal precedent here. 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Helene said:

That would presumably be what discovery is for.  That is why her lawyer might ask for disciplinary records, insurance records, depositions, law enforcement records, etc.   Once again, the complaint is not meant to provide proof.  

Discovery goes both way and production of documents will be required not only from the defendants but from the plaintiff as well. Ms. Waterbury would need to back up those claims by producing supporting documents and filling out interrogatories:  How she knew about those alleged incidents at NYCB (by witnessing or through hearsay) and when she learned about them. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Dreamer said:

Discovery goes both way and production of documents will be required not only from the defendants but from the plaintiff as well. Ms. Waterbury would need to back up those claims by producing supporting documents and filling out interrogatories:  How she knew about those alleged incidents at NYCB (by witnessing or through hearsay) and when she learned about them. 

If course she will be asked to supply info.  Presumably, so will sources, once disclosed. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Helene said:

If course she will be asked to supply info.  Presumably, so will sources, once disclosed. 

 

 

 

What about the privacy rights of all the people,  whose names are not currently revealed in the suit,  who will be exposed and humiliated if this discovery goes forward?  For example,  the alleged domestic abuser's  victim,  who has nothing to do with Finlay-Waterbury,  should not have her personal troubles used to prop up this claim.  There are women, alleged in the suit to have been involved in consensual sexual activities,  who no doubt would prefer not to be named.  (The latest version of the suit removes one name,  but you can't unring a bell.)   They didn't take or distribute photos of Waterbury.  Some of them are not even in NYCB.   In the name of female empowerment,  Ms. Waterbury  is hurting a lot of women.

 

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, Helene said:

I'm not sure why she's expected to be a sacrificial lamb to protect anyone else.  

Furthermore, why is it primarily Waterbury rather than the alleged perpetrators — Finlay, et al — who, according to @On Pointe, gets the blame for "hurting a lot of women" by bringing this suit? If Waterbury does indeed have standing to sue (and I understand that is still in dispute by some here), then it should follow that blame for potential negative effects of that suit might fall on them.

Edited by nanushka
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, nanushka said:

Furthermore, why is it primarily Waterbury rather than the alleged perpetrators — Finlay, et al — who, according to @On Pointe, gets the blame for "hurting a lot of women" by bringing this suit? If Waterbury does indeed have standing to sue (and I understand that is still in dispute by some here), then it should follow that blame for potential negative effects of that suit might fall on them.

I make no claim that Waterbury  is "primarily" to blame.  But she includes allegations about the actions of women that were not necessary to state her case,  and even where she doesn't use names,  she includes information that makes their identity apparent.  

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Seems like she’s the only one with a problem

The problem is not her, but the men who behaved disgustingly towards her and towards the women in the company (and the ABT dancers discussed as well).

And just because other women haven't spoken up doesn't mean they don't have a problem with it. The hashtag #WhyIDidntReport is clear evidence of the many reasons women do not come forward.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Seems like she’s the only one with a problem

Seems like she is the only one to come forward at this time. Though we don't know what has been going on behind the scenes that led the company to decide to fire Catazaro and Ramasar.  But if no-one else has a problem, then discovery may, in turn, prove no problem for the company--if the case goes forward that is.

As to why people wouldn't come forward even if they do have a problem, you will find a lot out there on social media these days on why women don't come forward in cases of sexual harassment, assault and worse, but in a case like this the reasons could extend from they didn't know their photos were being circulated to they were embarrassed to they are concerned about the impact on their careers (at least one person on this thread has speculated that coming forward hurts Waterbury's career since she is perceived as litigious) to... well...you name it...there are numerous reasons women who are subject to sexual mistreatment of all varieties prefer not to sue or even complain. And NOW they may feel under pressure as friends of the fired dancers etc. or indeed if they are receiving the kinds of ugly insults/threats Waterbury says she is receiving.

(I'll add that if it were to emerge that say the company is full of dancers who have "no problem" with the worst of the things alleged in the complaint...well, that in itself would be a problem of a different kind and in fact support the suit against the company. But I assume for now that that is not the case.)

As for people who might be called to answer questions in discovery etc. -- it has already been mentioned above that there are mechanisms to protect their identities if/as appropriate (eg a rape victim). I don't think this case is going to get to discovery, but if it does, then I hope those mechanisms are deployed appropriately. As for the suit making even unnamed dancers recognizable--so that people do know who they are, I think that may be restricted to a handful of New York ballet professionals or people with good friends in the dance world. Not the general public. I've heard my share of ballet gossip in my time and I have no idea who the unnamed parties are.  Not saying it might not be uncomfortable for them, but the vast majority of people only know those named.

 

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Helene said:

Are women "actors" when they're raped, assaulted, are beaten by their partners, and have their images shared? 

Not sure what you’re referring to when you talk about rape and assault/beating.

 Does Waterbury claim that happened to her?  It’s bizarre that if she is making these claims that the persons haven’t been mentioned in the lawsuit since text conversations that don’t involve her were. Seems like those stronger allegations would be at the forefront to prove her case

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Not sure what you’re referring to when you talk about rape and assault/beating.

I was responding to this:

15 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

But she includes allegations about the actions of women that were not necessary to state her case, 

 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

I make no claim that Waterbury  is "primarily" to blame.

Well, you began your post with this:

Quote

What about the privacy rights of all the people,  whose names are not currently revealed in the suit,  who will be exposed and humiliated if this discovery goes forward?  For example...

...and you ended it with this:

Quote

Ms. Waterbury  is hurting a lot of women.

And you didn't mention anyone other than her being at fault for the harms you described in your post. It seemed to me that you were "primarily" (if not, in fact, only) blaming her for those harms.

Link to comment

One might also recognize that a lot of women (in ballet and other fields) may feel helped when they see an Alexandra Waterbury step forward. Based on what I see on Twitter etc. I'm very inclined to believe her when she says she is getting thank you messages.   That's separate from the details of her case and what the law will decide and whether Ramasar  and Catazaro will get their jobs back or NYCB will have to go to court or not. For a lot of victimized women, who precisely don't step forward--and not because they don't have a problem--it can be meaningful to see someone do/say something they are not willing or able to do. But in a case like this certainly people get hurt starting with Waterbury herself. That's not on Waterbury--whether it is SOLELY on Finlay or on Finlay and Ramasar or Finlay, Ramasar, and Catazaro or on larger problems at NYCB or larger problems in the ballet world  or in society as refracted in the ballet world....Well, this thread has shown we all lean different ways on the matter. And much of the truth won't come out until much later...all of it perhaps never.  What I find puzzling is the suggestion that Waterbury, who brought a complaint that led the company's own internal investigation to take action against three of its leading dancers is somehow the cause of the company's problems. I just don't find it plausible that NYCB suspended Ramasar and Catazaro lightly, or, later, decided to fire them (even if the company is later forced to go back on the latter decision).

(Making Waterbury the villain over privacy laws in this case? Well, I don't know if such laws apply under the circumstances, but if that's what the company or the male dancers involved decide to do, that should play just charmingly to the general public....and I daresay will do a lot to clear up the shadow over NYCB's reputation. [That's a joke.]) Edited to add that perhaps in the current U.S. public sphere I should not be so sure that that IS a joke.

Edited by Drew
Link to comment

Even if the company goes through every dancers phones and finds things they don’t find appropriate, even if it turns out female dancers were also acting poorly to male dancers too, if they decide to fire 5 more dancers, 10 more or even 50 more, Waterbury was still never an employee of the company.

 

I once dated a Goldman Sachs employee who was abusive. Can I launch an internal investigation and have the phones of all GS employees worldwide vetted? 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

Even if the company goes through every dancers phones and finds things they don’t find appropriate, even if it turns out female dancers were also acting poorly to male dancers too, if they decide to fire 5 more dancers, 10 more or even 50 more, Waterbury was still never an employee of the company.

 

I once dated a Goldman Sachs employee who was abusive. Can I launch an internal investigation and have the phones of all GS employees worldwide vetted? 

I am very sorry you went through that.

I suppose the answer to your question depends on the circumstances of his abuse and who else at Goldman Sachs, if anyone, was involved.

I assume even if you did have a case--judge didn't dismiss it etc.-- because of plausible indications of a massive problem at Goldman Sachs, blah, blah there would still be limits on whose phones could be vetted etc. Law is slow and complicated.

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Drew said:

I am very sorry you went through that.

I suppose the answer to your question depends on the circumstances of his abuse and who else at Goldman Sachs, if anyone, was involved.

I assume even if you did have a case--judge didn't dismiss it etc.-- because of plausible indications of a massive problem at Goldman Sachs, blah, blah there would still be limits on whose phones could be vetted etc. Law is slow and complicated.

My point is, it was our problem. We are still friends in fact and he is in a much better place now (recovered alch etc). 

I don’t see it as having warranted a larger scale investigation or lawsuit against GS even if many men there are similar (they are).

Thats why I feel strongly about this, I believe this should be between the two parties who dated.

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, fordhambae said:

I once dated a Goldman Sachs employee who was abusive. Can I launch an internal investigation and have the phones of all GS employees worldwide vetted? 

I think you're mixing your metaphors here.  Goldman Sachs can launch an internal investigation.  Whether they are able to have the personal phones of their worldwide employees to be vetted would be a combination of local and national laws and policy.  Just like NYCB launched internal investigations into Peter Martins and into Finlay, Ramasar, and Catazaro, at least.  

If you found a lawyer and filed a lawsuit, and the court did not exclude Goldman Sachs from the case, then your and their lawyers would be subject to the terms and limits of discovery.

As far as I know Goldman Sachs has training programs, but they start with adults.  They don't have a school affiliate that is their primary source of employees and where students, who can be resident from their early teens, and even live in the dorms while they transition from being an apprentice to a full company member, and feeds into the company.  

You took a different path, which was your choice.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Helene said:

Are women "actors" when they're raped, assaulted, are beaten by their partners, and have their images shared? 

I'm sorry,  but your meaning is very unclear to me,  as regards this case.  I was referring to the women,  referenced in the suit,  who willingly engaged in sexual activities.  While Ms. Waterbury's image was shared without her knowledge,  there is no claim in the suit of anyone being raped,  assaulted or beaten.  ETA there is mention of an alleged rape within the company,  but it has nothing to do with Finlay-Waterbury  or my comments.

1 hour ago, nanushka said:

Well, you began your post with this:

...and you ended it with this:

And you didn't mention anyone other than her being at fault for the harms you described in your post. It seemed to me that you were "primarily" (if not, in fact, only) blaming her for those harms.

Ms. Waterbury  is the one doing the suing.  I am discussing the elements in her lawsuit,  not the alleged behavior overall.  Her case against the defendants would be just as strong without mentioning the other women.  When the defendants  respond,  I doubt that the consensual activity of the other women  will be brought up.  It's irrelevant.

 

Edited by On Pointe
Addendum
Link to comment

Back the the party in the Washington, DC hotel room for a moment -- If the underage apprentices of 16 and 17 years, were not declared emancipated minors, are there any child labor laws that were violated by not having this group of people under supervision during nonworking hours?

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, lmspear said:

Back the the party in the Washington, DC hotel room for a moment -- If the underage apprentices of 16 and 17 years, were not declared emancipated minors, are there any child labor laws that were violated by not having this group of people under supervision during nonworking hours?

While "underage" is listed in the complaint and "underage apprentices" are listed in the interview, it isn't clear what "underage" means:  for drinking purposes, that is 21.  The age of sexual consent in Washington DC, according to the information on this site is 16.  (In NY, it's 17.)  

If, and that's an undetermined if, the apprentices were legal minors (16-17), I haven't seen anything public or contractual that discusses any requirement for the company to provide supervision.  Perhaps someone else knows how to search this, but, while I have read that children in theater and films need to have a chaperone below a certain age, almost all of the search results I can find for children working in the entertainment industry are from UK sites, and the US information is about unaccompanied children on airlines.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Helene said:

While "underage" is listed in the complaint and "underage apprentices" are listed in the interview, it isn't clear what "underage" means:  for drinking purposes, that is 21.  The age of sexual consent in Washington DC, according to the information on this site is 16.  (In NY, it's 17.)  

If, and that's an undetermined if, the apprentices were legal minors (16-17), I haven't seen anything public or contractual that discusses any requirement for the company to provide supervision.  Perhaps someone else knows how to search this, but, while I have read that children in theater and films need to have a chaperone below a certain age, almost all of the search results I can find for children working in the entertainment industry are from UK sites, and the US information is about unaccompanied children on airlines.

There is very little supervision required in  New York for stage children of any age.  When she was starring in Annie on Broadway at age eleven,  Sarah Jessica Parker used to take the subway and the bus to the theater by herself.  In California,  you have very strict rules on movie and TV sets regarding hours worked and on set education,  but not in New York.  At any rate anyone old enough to be an apprentice at NYCB  is too old to be supervised.  The reality is nobody chaperones seventeen year old kids working in fast food either.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...