Waterbury Case and Repercussions Discussion Cont'd

[FayBallet]

[Admin note:  these quote swas from the Ashley Bouder on Body Shaming thread]

On 12/12/2022 at 8:01 PM, On Pointe said:

The article also reminded me how the media managed to make Amar Ramasar the face of the Finlay-Waterbury affair,  naming and shaming him,  and letting the white guy off the hook.

 

On 12/12/2022 at 8:30 PM, Helene said:

The NYT hardly spared Chase Finlay, but he also left the company rather quickly in disgrace, and he re-appeared briefly in the NYT when he filed his countersuit.  Zachary Catazaro decamped to Europe, and when he returned, joined Cleveland Ballet in his native state of Ohio. which, as far as the NYT is concerned, particularly since Macaulay left and no one else seems to have a travel budget, might just as well be off the grid.  Ramasar remained front and center on Broadway and then, later, after he returned to NYCB.

 

NYT: City Ballet Fires Two Male Dancers Named in Photo Sharing Scandal

Here is one example from 2018. The article is about Ramasar and Catazaro being fired, but they chose a photo of Ramasar for the cover image. Yes, there is a photo of Catazaro included later, but it isn't the prominent image of the article; it's only seen after you open and scroll. This article came out before Catazaro went to Europe. I won't say anyone was let off the hook, but I do think Ramasar was made the face of the situation before it made sense to do so (if it ever did).

[abatt]

That's true that Ramasar became the face of the "scandal".  He was dogged by Waterbury and her minions when he appeared in West Side Story on Broadway.  I believe his case was still in arbitration while he was on Broadway, but it's hard to recall the timing.  Since he was the only one of the three men who continued to actually work in New York City, he bore the brunt of the negative news media coverage.  I don't think it was because of racism that he became the public face of the scandal.  He fought the hardest to refuse to permit Waterbury to destroy his career.

 

 

[volcanohunter]

3 hours ago, FayBallet said:

The article is about Ramasar and Catazaro being fired, but they chose a photo of Ramasar for the cover image. Yes, there is a photo of Catazaro included later, but it isn't the prominent image of the article; it's only seen after you open and scroll.

 Catazaro was the most passive participant in the chats in question. He was included in the chat group but didn't write anything. Ramasar, on the other hand, made unsavory comments and shared a nude photo of his girlfriend.

[Helene]

2 hours ago, FayBallet said:

Here is one example from 2018. The article is about Ramasar and Catazaro being fired, but they chose a photo of Ramasar for the cover image.

 

1 hour ago, abatt said:

That's true that Ramasar became the face of the "scandal".  He was dogged by Waterbury and her minions when he appeared in West Side Story on Broadway. 

The previews for West Side Story were in 2019, and the article to which FayBallet linked was from 2018: the news in multiple publications in 2020 about picketers targeting Ramasar's participation in a Broadway show, by which time Catazaro was on another continent -- which would be interesting to a much wider audience -- wasn't news at the time that they were both fired from NYCB.

While Ramasar would have been better known to a general audience because he had been in Carousel, and for people who had read the lawsuit, was a far more enthusiastic participant in photo-sharing and commenting than Catazaro, it's just as possible, if not likely, that this wasn't why they chose a photo of Ramasar above the lead, and Catazarro much later in the article.

I plead guilty to scrolling past almost all photos in news articles and reviews, and find them annoying interruptions to text; I have to force myself to look at the "Parting Shot" at the bottom of the Dance Edit newsletter.  I'm not sure if the photo registered consciously when I first read the article or if this was a pattern in coverage of all phases of this ongoing story. 

Ramasar would have been correctly feeatured in the picketeers stories,  when he decided to return to the Company, and when his girlfriend spoke publicly.  But FayBallet raises an important point: why when it should have been "all things being  equal" when both Ramasar and Catazaro were fired in the same decision.  (Finlay had already left the company.)

[Helene]

3 minutes ago, volcanohunter said:

 Catazaro was the most passive participant in the chats in question. He was included in the chat group but didn't write anything. Ramasar, on the other hand, made unsavory comments and shared a nude photo of his girlfriend.

Edited to add:  Per the article: Catazaro said that he did not share images of Waterbury, but didn't deny that he had shared other photos or comments.  The lawsuit said he had exchanged photos, but of other dancers.   

If Catazaro had been a purely passive recipient, I don't think that NYCB would have gone out on a limb and fired him for receiving photos.  

[Balletwannabe]

Maybe whoever chose Ramasar thought his photo was more eye-catching for the article because he's a very handsome guy?  I don't know.  Sometimes people don't have an agenda and just make quick decisions.  **Of course Catazaro is a very good looking man as well, but everyone has their own preferences.

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Balletwannabe

[volcanohunter]

1 hour ago, Helene said:

If Catazaro had been a purely passive recipient, I don't think that NYCB would have gone out on a limb and fired him for receiving photos.  

Yes, of course, I phrased that poorly. Presumably a person who was not interested in nude photos of dancers would not have been participating in the chat. But since no particularly vulgar statements were attributed to Catazaro in the incident that led to the dismissals, I'm not surprised that he didn't become the "face" of the scandal.

[On Pointe]

3 hours ago, volcanohunter said:

Yes, of course, I phrased that poorly. Presumably a person who was not interested in nude photos of dancers would not have been participating in the chat. But since no particularly vulgar statements were attributed to Catazaro in the incident that led to the dismissals, I'm not surprised that he didn't become the "face" of the scandal.

One could argue that the true faces of the scandal are Finlay's and Waterbury's.  Yet in the many articles about it in the non-dance internet coverage,  Ramasar's face was often the only one shown.  

In my opinion, the whole kerfuffle was an over-reaction on management's part.  Everyone involved was an adult.  NYCBallet had no business interfering in their private lives.  Of course they had to defend themselves when Waterbury sued the company,  which is still playing out.  But there is precedent that corporations are not responsible for the non-work related activities of their employees.

[Balletwannabe]

9 hours ago, On Pointe said:

One could argue that the true faces of the scandal are Finlay's and Waterbury's.  Yet in the many articles about it in the non-dance internet coverage,  Ramasar's face was often the only one shown.  

In my opinion, the whole kerfuffle was an over-reaction on management's part.  Everyone involved was an adult.  NYCBallet had no business interfering in their private lives.  Of course they had to defend themselves when Waterbury sued the company,  which is still playing out.  But there is precedent that corporations are not responsible for the non-work related activities of their employees.

This isn't true in any job, anywhere.  If something becomes public that's considered offensive or unsavory, you can/will be fired.  Most people sign a contract that includes a morality clause.  "Cancel culture" isn't going anywhere.  This wasn't a shocking story, we see these types of stories every day in the news.  

Your second point that they're not *responsible* (legally), 100% true.  

[On Pointe]

7 hours ago, Balletwannabe said:

This isn't true in any job, anywhere.  If something becomes public that's considered offensive or unsavory, you can/will be fired.  Most people sign a contract that includes a morality clause.  "Cancel culture" isn't going anywhere.  This wasn't a shocking story, we see these types of stories every day in the news.  

Your second point that they're not *responsible* (legally), 100% true.  

If NYCBallet is not responsible as a corporation,  then why are they reacting to  the private,  non-criminal activities of its employees?  You are right about morality clauses in contracts,  but they aren't universal.  Does NYCBallet actually have one?  What they should have is a non-disparagement clause,  so that dancers with a nebulous beef,  like "body shaming", would think twice about running to media with their complaints.

[Helene]

NYCB has "community standards."  

And it's not as if morals clauses, or whatever they're named, are something new and part of "cancel culture," unless you consider "cancel culture" as old as the oldest sin, because workplaces and groups have, for millenia, removed people from violating their cultural norms, which, for companies, has simply meant embarrassing them., or restricted them from the beginning.

[Balletwannabe]

1 hour ago, Helene said:

NYCB has "community standards."  

And it's not as if morals clauses, or whatever they're named, are something new and part of "cancel culture," unless you consider "cancel culture" as old as the oldest sin, because workplaces and groups have, for millenia, removed people from violating their cultural norms, which, for companies, has simply meant embarrassing them., or restricted them from the beginning.

I'm referring to cancel culture as a new phenomenon, where instead of a proper (private) review process of behavior that might end in a firing, the public has become the judge & jury and companies unfortunately let them decide more often than not.  I think it's awful, but as I said, it's not going anywhere.  

[abatt]

2 hours ago, Balletwannabe said:

I'm referring to cancel culture as a new phenomenon, where instead of a proper (private) review process of behavior that might end in a firing, the public has become the judge & jury and companies unfortunately let them decide more often than not.  I think it's awful, but as I said, it's not going anywhere.  

I think that is exactly what happened to Ramasar and Catazaro.  Remember that they initially received only a few months suspension, which seemed fair. After all the negative publicity , NYCB fired them both.  This series of events were key, I believe, in leading the arbitrator to require the company re-hire them.  This was a way for NYCB to demonstrate to the media that NYCB tried to get rid of their "bad apples" but was forced to rehire them, deflecting any blame for their reinstatement to the arb decision.  Notably, I don't recall the media ever presenting stories about the fact that they were reinstated, and that Waterbury lost her court case against these two.  Basically, she was allowed to run amuck in the media while getting regular news coverage of  her protests with her minions of Ramasar,  and destroy two lives with no real repercussions to her.

Edited December 17, 2022 by abatt

[Drew]

2 hours ago, Balletwannabe said:

I'm referring to cancel culture as a new phenomenon, where instead of a proper (private) review process of behavior that might end in a firing, the public has become the judge & jury and companies unfortunately let them decide more often than not.  I think it's awful, but as I said, it's not going anywhere.  

One reason for the problems we have now is that the "instead of" you mention was not a consistent reality by any means. "Proper private review"processes," all too often were derelict in workplaces even, or especially, when they were needed.  What we are discussing as "cancel culture" didn't replace a system that was working just fine. 

(This is not a comment on NYCB or Waterbury and Finlay. But a general comment.)

[Lizzy]

3 hours ago, Helene said:

NYCB has "community standards."  

And it's not as if morals clauses, or whatever they're named, are something new and part of "cancel culture," unless you consider "cancel culture" as old as the oldest sin, because workplaces and groups have, for millenia, removed people from violating their cultural norms, which, for companies, has simply meant embarrassing them., or restricted them from the beginning.

Same as with many other companies in different industry. Apple fired a VP immediately after his distasteful remarks about women in a Tiktok video. Companies have social responsibilities, and need to maintain an image.  

[Helene]

49 minutes ago, abatt said:

I think that is exactly what happened to Ramasar and Catazaro.  Remember that they initially received only a few months suspension, which seemed fair. After all the negative publicity , NYCB fired them both.  This series of events were key, I believe, in leading the arbitrator to require the company re-hire them.  This was a way for NYCB to demonstrate to the media that NYCB tried to get rid of their "bad apples" but was forced to rehire them, deflecting any blame for their reinstatement to the arb decision.  Notably, I don't recall the media ever presenting stories about the fact that they were reinstated, and that Waterbury lost her court case against these two.  Basically, she was allowed to run amuck in the media while getting regular news coverage of  her protests with her minions of Ramasar,  and destroy two lives with no real repercussions to her.

In fact, the company argued that some women told management they would be uncomfortable dancing with the men and impacted their employment, which was part of their firing decision, and the New York Times did, indeed, report on the arbitrator's decision right after it hapened:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/arts/dance/city-ballet-amar-ramasar-sexually-explicit-texts.html?searchResultPosition=28

 

[On Pointe]

19 minutes ago, Helene said:

In fact, the company argued that some women told management they would be uncomfortable dancing with the men and impacted their employment, which was part of their firing decision, and the New York Times did, indeed, report on the arbitrator's decision right after it hapened:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/arts/dance/city-ballet-amar-ramasar-sexually-explicit-texts.html?searchResultPosition=28

 

There have been a number of occasions at NYCB when ex-spouses and ex-lovers have been required to perform pas de deux with each other,  sometimes when the signatures on the divorce papers are barely dry.   That was probably more "uncomfortable" than the knowledge that your partner may have shared a nude photo of someone,  who isn't you and doesn't work with you  with another person.  

[Helene]

21 minutes ago, On Pointe said:

that your partner may have shared a nude photo of someone,  who isn't you and doesn't work with you  with another person.

Since the women haven't identified themselves, the company hasn't identified them, the suit alleges sharing photos for more women (and at least one student) besides Waterbury, -- and these allegations weren't denied -- we have no idea if photos of the woman who spoke to management were among those whose photos were shared.  And since photos were shared with at least three men in NYCB, the women who went to management would be working with them, and, at social events, subjected to Mr. Jr. Board Member.

[volcanohunter]

I can understand why a ballet company will not necessarily come down hard on public criticism by an employee. Sadly, ballet companies have seen physical violence, sexual harassment, psychological abuse, sexism, racism, bullying, extortion and various forms of corruption. There has been a history of sweeping things under the rug. They are not especially numerous, but ballet professionals have been convicted of violent and/or sexual crimes and sentenced to prison terms. Ultimately, it is healthier and safer to err on the side of speaking out.

I cannot know how individual dancers cope with uncomfortable partnering assignments. However I can imagine a female dancer finding it more comfortable to work with an ex, rather than a dancer with a prurient interest in looking at nude photos of women who are not his life partner. The first did not necessarily disrespect or objectify women. The second did. 

Edited December 18, 2022 by volcanohunter

[abatt]

The notion that the complaints of a few women dancers that they don't want to work with a particular male partner could result in the firing of that male dancer is very disturbing.   The obvious solution is to not pair up these dancers.  The solution should not be to fire the person. People in all workplaces are thrown together to work with people they dislike.  But I've never heard of  terminating the employment of a person because someone in the company doesn't want to work with them as a proper course of action.  More broadly speaking, I don't think the few complaints about not wanting to work with Ramasar and Catazaro caused their termination.  These are unionized dancers with rights.  I believe that certain women (Bouder?) complained that the union was defending Ramasar and Catazaro, to no avail.  Her right to feel completely comfortable  did not outweigh the union's obligation to defend against two wrongful terminations of employment.  I'm sure  NYCB's attorneys advised them that the terminations were unlawful and that the company would probably lose the arbitration.  The company made the decision that at least if they had to rehire these men, they could say  in the media that they were ordered to do so by a legal tribunal .  This lessened the damage to the public image of the company.   I believe that the firings were calculated to stem the tide of bad publicity against the company.

[Balletwannabe]

17 hours ago, Drew said:

One reason for the problems we have now is that the "instead of" you mention was not a consistent reality by any means. "Proper private review"processes," all too often were derelict in workplaces even, or especially, when they were needed.  What we are discussing as "cancel culture" didn't replace a system that was working just fine. 

(This is not a comment on NYCB or Waterbury and Finlay. But a general comment.)

I'm sure you're right - so it's only gotten worse, it seems.  

[On Pointe]

17 hours ago, volcanohunter said:

However I can imagine a female dancer finding it more comfortable to work with an ex, rather than a dancer with a prurient interest in looking at nude photos of women who are not his life partner. The first did not necessarily disrespect or objectify women. The second did. 

According to numerous studies,  and casual observation,  straight men almost universally have a "prurient" interest in looking at nude photos of women,  whether they are life partners or not.  (And I've known a fair number of gay men who like looking at female nudes,  too.). It seems to be hard-wired in male sexuality.

The public's reaction to the case varied.  While many felt the men were in the wrong,  some expressed amused surprise that male ballet dancers were sexually interested in women at all.   And others,  like me,  felt that their private behavior,  that never would have come to light except for Waterbury's possibly illegal snooping,  should not end the dancers' careers,  and were none of NYCBallet's business in the first place.

[Helene]

According to the arbitrator, it was NYCB's business, because while he determined that firings weren't justified, the suspensions were.

NYCB is a workplace.  While they may be under one-year contracts, dancers are employees and have more rights than contractors.  Courts can decide at any time that some terms in the contract are unenforceable, for better or worse.  The courts can decide that there are other principles of employment law that must be practiced in addition to what is in the contracts.  The courts can interpret/re-interpret law and apply case law to new circumstances, like the judge who reinstated NYCB in the lawsuit did.  (There was dissent in the judge's interpretation, and I don't remember reading anything about where that stands now.)

A court is not going to decide that all dancers must be able to be paired together, or that there are specific circumstance that they shouldn't be, but they can interpret whether or not the company made reasonable accomodation based on difference principles, possibly hostile work environment.  They could even come up with arguments based on workplace law that influence how companies manage what they consider weight issues.

Simply because it's always been done this way or that, and dance company management and guest choreographers have been able to cast at will and define capability in terms of their aesthetic doesn't mean that this will always be the case. 

 

[On Pointe]

3 hours ago, Helene said:

They could even come up with arguments based on workplace law that influence how companies manage what they consider weight issues.

Now that would make a fascinating legal argument - lawyers,  juries and judges deciding what ballet dancers should be allowed to weigh!  Since dancers are on one year contracts,  those who gain weight can simply not have their contracts renewed.  That would be ridiculous,  because a valued artist,  whom the company has invested years in developing,   should not be dismissed for a temporary condition.  But it's preferable to the notion that not being in shape for the job you have makes you part of a protected class.

May I add,  Kathryn Morgan has said that she felt more "comfortable" dancing with a gay partner than a straight one.  Should ballerinas be able to demand that their partners not be heterosexual,  because being handled intimately by a straight male they are not in a relationship with makes for a hostile work environment?  At some point there has to be recognition that as employees and union members,  dancers have rights.  But they don't run the company.

Edited December 19, 2022 by On Pointe
Further thought

[Kathleen O'Connell]

11 hours ago, On Pointe said:

According to numerous studies,  and casual observation,  straight men almost universally have a "prurient" interest in looking at nude photos of women,  whether they are life partners or not.

For me—and I'm speaking only for myself—the issue isn't looking at nude images of women. People have been doing that since cave-paintings and our museum walls are covered with women in all their naked glory. It's consent. If a woman is OK with her partner sharing nude or sexually explicit images of her with others, that's their business. But if those images are shared without the woman's knowledge or consent, that's a different matter. It's a breach of trust. If a woman's colleague shares an explicit photo her with other of her colleagues without her consent, and exposes what she believed was a private, intimate moment to public gaze—the gaze of people she works with closely day in and day out—she's stopped being their colleague and has become a commodity. I'd consider it workplace harassment and I'd argue that any organization would be right to sanction employees who were engaged in it.

Alexandra Waterbury wasn't anyone's colleague, so Finlay and Ramasar's behavior with respect to her isn't the same kind of breach of trust. But the men involved shared images of women they worked with too, and that's a different matter.