All Defendants Except Finlay Are Dismissed from Alexandra Waterbury's Lawsuit

[cubanmiamiboy]

On 10/12/2020 at 4:34 PM, canbelto said:

Due process is overrated. The only way rape and sexual assault will stop is if we BURN THE WHOLE PLACE DOWN. Make men suffer collectively for the way women have been victimized over the years.

I'm glad that Ramasar didn't have his career destroyed, and that his is a cautionary tale for all men, both those guilty or those others who might suffer unjustified vilification if your theory is indeed being applied to them.

[volcanohunter]

On 10/12/2020 at 5:34 PM, canbelto said:

Complaints to the company did not work and I was too embarrassed to do anything else.

Or the company may assert that you brought it on yourself, so you quit in disgust rather than continue working alongside your assailant.

#MeToo 

[Kathleen O'Connell]

On 10/11/2020 at 2:04 AM, dirac said:

I would prefer to think that Waterbury was misled into thinking her case was better than it was.

I would, too. And it wouldn't surprise me if she had been encouraged to think of the proceedings as a campaign for justice and the greater good, especially given the climate during that particular moment. Women speaking out against sexual misconduct were hailed for their bravery, and money's not the only salve for one's wounds.

[GB1216]

I don’t think I can add anything of value that hasn’t already been said on this string.  I do remember (pre-scandal) seeing images of Finlay and Waterbury when they were together at one of the galas sitting with Ansel Elgort and others.  I remember thinking “What a fast and furious crowd that must be.”  As a result, I was not AT ALL surprised when this hit.  They gave off an air of extreme that comes along with drugs and bad behavior.  
To that end, I think Waterbury is completely within her rights to go after Finlay for everything that he and his Connecticut family is worth; they were featured in that aol series from awhile ago and they screamed wealth and privilege.  He is guilty - full stop.

in terms of NYCB and SAB, I do think the ruling had it right.  Organizations and companies can’t be held liable for actions outside of their sphere of influence - which extends to personal relationships.  This case had a huge media blitz around it with multiple NYT write ups, etc.  it’s easy to assume that they were looking for either a pay out or the publicity. We don’t know the conversations that went on behind closed doors.

I do think Waterbury is the victim, and I also don’t find her to be particularly mature either.  I’m not shaming her - i just think she could use more mentorship in the words she uses and how she addresses things.  For example, the Alexa maxwell situation.  Alexa is a grown woman who has been in a long term relationship with Amar.  I read Alexa’s statement and I read Waterbury’s response. The response devolved really quickly into rhetoric that shamed Alexa.  IMO, not really how to go about things.

[Helene]

I think they may have been overly optimistic about how long the MeToo window would be.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

On 10/12/2020 at 7:40 PM, Fairandlove said:

Her photos were never shared on a website like MySpace so that comparison is not even justified. 

If I've parsed the complaint correctly, the photos were shared via a group text. While they weren't as publicly available as they might have been on a MySpace page, it would nonetheless have been trivially easy for any of the men who received them to share them widely and for those photos to fall into the hands of people with no inclination or incentive to treat them with discretion. Since nothing shared digitally ever really dies, those pictures are probably still floating around in cyberspace waiting for someone to scoop them up and post them somewhere. (The list of politicians who wake up one morning to discover that their private texts are all over the internet is long and distinguished.) 

[Fairandlove]

10 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

If I've parsed the complaint correctly, the photos were shared via a group text.

This is also unclear, in the complaint it said that the images were ‘exclusively shared with members of NYCB’ but then in an interview on ABC, Waterbury said they were shared with ‘at least 20 men’. 
 So if 20 men received her photos and it happened exclusively within NYCB, how come only 3 men from NYCB were added to her lawsuit.

There are still lots of inconsistencies in her story.

[FauxPas]

If I remember correctly, Waterbury mentioned that she was approached by a pimp looking to employ her as an escort on account of having seen the explicit and personal videos that Finlay shared.  Unless this pimp is a NYCB employee with a dicey side gig, then Waterbury's photos were shared outside the group chat circle which consisted of at least 20 people.  So I agree with Kathleen O'Connell above.

[Kathleen O'Connell]

41 minutes ago, Fairandlove said:

There are still lots of inconsistencies in her story.

The complaint is Meerson's presentation of her story, and it is a poorly crafted one. 

I keep meaning to look for some other examples of his firm's work product to see if it's uniformly as sloppy and haphazard as this complaint is. I remember wondering at one point whether the firm was even really trying.

I don't doubt Waterbury's claim that Finely photographed her without her knowledge and consent and that he shared those photographs with his NYCB colleagues without her knowledge and consent. 

[Fairandlove]

13 minutes ago, FauxPas said:

Unless this pimp is a NYCB employee with a dicey side gig, then Waterbury's photos were shared outside the group chat circle which consisted of at least 20 people.  So I agree with Kathleen O'Connell above.

Right so either Waterbury exaggerated this story or the lawsuit is erroneous. Or both.

[cubanmiamiboy]

1 hour ago, GB1216 said:

In terms of NYCB and SAB, I do think the ruling had it right.  Organizations and companies can’t be held liable for actions outside of their sphere of influence.

Gelsey Kirkland's point relayed heavily on this. She believed that, besides her own, NYCB and its directives-( Balanchine at the time)- were indeed very responsible for turning a blind eye to situations. 

[Kathleen O'Connell]

13 minutes ago, Fairandlove said:

Right so either Waterbury exaggerated this story or the lawsuit is erroneous. Or both.

I honestly don't think we can say either of these things without access to all of the evidence. The public documents represent only a fragment of the whole. 

Just to make sure I understand your point: what is Waterbury exaggerating?

[Fairandlove]

16 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

I honestly don't think we can say either of these things without access to all of the evidence. The public documents represent only a fragment of the whole. 

Just to make sure I understand your point: what is Waterbury exaggerating?

I said either Waterbury exaggerated or the lawsuit was erroneous. 
 There seems to be a discrepancy between the number of people Waterbury claims to have seen her images and the number of people who were sued (Catazaro also never received her images) so really only two persons who were sued allegedly received her photo, what about the others she mentioned?

 If her goal was to hold men accountable for viewing her images, why did some of them get sued whilst others got away with no consequence?

 It doesn’t add up. 

[On Pointe]

Chase Finlay is a grown man.  However wealthy his parents may be,  they are not financially responsible for his wrongdoing.  Why bring up his parents without bringing up hers?  Surely they could see that their daughter was flying a bit close to the sun,  but they have been absent from this case.  

1 hour ago, cubanmiamiboy said:

Gelsey Kirkland's point relayed heavily on this. She believed that, besides her own, NYCB and its directives-( Balanchine at the time)- were indeed very responsible for turning a blind eye to situations. 

Unless the conduct affects work,  or negatively impact the public image of the company,  employers have no justification for meddling in the private lives of employees.  There are many situations in life and work where turning a blind eye is prudent.  

 

[Kathleen O'Connell]

4 hours ago, Fairandlove said:

 If her goal was to hold men accountable for viewing her images, why did some of them get sued whilst others got away with no consequence?

There are plenty of reasons why Waterbury and her lawyers might have chosen not to sue every man who saw the photos Finlay took of her:

1) If they only received the photos and neither solicited them nor passed them on to others there may not be much that Waterbury can sue them for.

2) They may be "judgement-proof," i.e., even if Waterbury were to win her suit and the judge awarded her money damages, they might not have the financial wherewithal to pay. 

3) Friends, colleagues, and acquaintances might have creditably told Waterbury that they knew of men other than the named defendants who'd seen the pictures, but she might not have enough first-hand evidence to bring a claim against them.

Suing people is expensive; one must pick one's counterparties carefully.

[volcanohunter]

2 hours ago, On Pointe said:

Unless the conduct affects work,  or negatively impact the public image of the company,  employers have no justification for meddling in the private lives of employees. 

The chat didn't have a negative impact on the company's public image?

[Helene]

Neither the lawsuit or any statement I've seen from Waterbury claimed that all of the more than 20 men were at NYCB.  For one thing, Longhitano wasn't a member of NYCB, although the lawsuit included Longhitano's exaggerated and false description of his role on his website.  Other elements of the lawsuit claimed that it was shared  to at least one man outside NYCB.  So I don't see any inconsistency there.  A casual pass-through and an active member of a conversation, though, are very different things, and certainly having something sent doesn't make the recipient liable.  It still means many people saw the images, regardless of whether they solicited them.

 

[Fairandlove]

31 minutes ago, Helene said:

Neither the lawsuit or any statement I've seen from Waterbury claimed that all of the more than 20 men were at NYCB.  

 

The lawsuit claims that it happened exclusively between men at NYCB (Line 104 of the complaint)

Here Waterbury says 9 men:

Somewhere else she said 20, I’m trying to locate that.

[Helene]

In section 104 of one document, it was not speaking about images of Waterbury: it was speaking about images of female ballet dancers, among them the ones that Ramasar apologized to Maxwell for sharing.   At one point, Merson said they had proof that the messages had been sent on on the clock, which would have meant from NYCB premises, but I don't think they were able to prove that.   I may be misremembering, but I thought this was a point in the arbitration hearing and decision.

[Fairandlove]

56 minutes ago, Kathleen O'Connell said:

1) If they only received the photos and neither solicited them nor passed them on to others there may not be much that Waterbury can sue them for.

2) They may be "judgement-proof," i.e., even if Waterbury were to win her suit and the judge awarded her money damages, they might not have the financial wherewithal to pay. 

3) Friends, colleagues, and acquaintances might have creditably told Waterbury that they knew of men other than the named defendants who'd seen the pictures, but she might not have enough first-hand evidence to bring a claim against them.

Suing people is expensive; one must pick one's counterparties carefully.

1) If that’s the case then there was no reason to sue Catazaro since he didn’t send or receive her images.

2) That would show that this case was brought for financial gain and not on the principle of holding all accountable.
3) Speaking hearsay on national media could be problematic if it had gone to discovery and could discredit her cause.

Finally its not expensive to sue if your lawyer works on contingency, which Merson does.

[Helene]

Where was it published or spoken about publicly that discovery never happened?  I didn't keep up with all of the motions.  

The suit had a lot of points, and not every single assertion was meant to support every one.

Waterbury and Merson were clear that they were looking for a monetary settlement to compensate for damages to her life, both when they approached NYCB and when they filed a suit.  It's in the suit.  That doesn't mean it's the only reason she exposed her life by filing a suit, and it there's nothing contradictory about asking for compensation and having a broader cause.

The contents of any lawsuit are a negotiation between client and lawyer, and a lawyer can say no.  And that includes refusing to spend money to include a judgement-proof person in the suit, because the quota of cause-related work had been reached.  Like with every project, there is a balance between scope, time, and resources.

[On Pointe]

55 minutes ago, volcanohunter said:

The chat didn't have a negative impact on the company's public image?

In my opinion,  no,  it didn't.  It may have negatively impacted the public image of Finlay and Ramasar,  but I don't believe it hurt the company's image.

[Fairandlove]

22 minutes ago, Helene said:

Where was it published or spoken about publicly that discovery never happened?  I didn't keep up with all of the motions.  

Waterbury and Merson were clear that they were looking for a monetary settlement to compensate for damages to her life, both when they approached NYCB and when they filed a suit.  It's in the suit.  That doesn't mean it's the only reason she exposed her life by filing a suit, and it there's nothing contradictory about asking for compensation and having a broader cause.

The parties that were dismissed obviously won’t go to discovery since the dismissal occurs prior to discovery.

The judge also ruled that she failed to articulate any measurable damages in at least one of the claims dismissed.

[Helene]

I think the suit's only chance to make a case against NYCB and possibly SAB was to go to discovery and ask for disciplinary records.  Without those or other internal information that showed preferential treatment for the men in the company, there's no way they could have established any case.

At least I now know that it wasn't sloppy/incomplete discovery.

[Fairandlove]

4 minutes ago, Helene said:

I think the suit's only chance to make a case against NYCB and possibly SAB was to go to discovery and ask for disciplinary records.  Without those or other internal information that showed preferential treatment for the men in the company, there's no way they could have established any case.

At least I now know that it wasn't sloppy/incomplete discovery.

Exactly just a sloppy lawsuit with non-starter causes of action.