« NYCB 2/13 – Sleeping Beauty opening night | Main | observations 2/16 »

February 15, 2019

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I think his legal argument is solid. When this news came out last summer, my impression was that the only entity she had a claim against was Finlay.

Not related to legality, reading that text chain makes my skin crawl.

ITA, but walk down the street and listen to what the kids are singing along with in terms of rap music. Those texts are no worse. Lots of people enjoy saying, singing, and quoting disgusting things. The more disgusting, the more positive their impact on their social circles.

I read the motion and am pretty certain it will be granted, as it should be. If only that could undo all the harm this poor guy has been subjected to.

Shame on the plaintiff, her attorney, and the associated henchmen in the media for an entirely unwarranted character assassination.

I wouldn’t be surprised if he files a counterclaim. He seems to have outlined some of the damages against him in the motion to dismiss.

I'm not sure that I would describe him as a poor guy. The plaintiff's lawyer shouldn't be allowed to be so careless with the facts in order to benefit his client's claim. It doesn't seem like much professional checking of the facts was done before this lawsuit was thrown together with a big media campaign.

I agree with yukionna that the donor's legal counsel is correct and that Ms. Waterbury's claim is rightly against Finlay, and probably not against this donor, as his legal counsel rightly asserts that he didn't take any actions that directly affect Ms. Waterbury.

I don't disagree that the tenor of the texts is in line with popular music, be it hip hop or otherwise (I'm looking at you "Blurred Lines"). That said, I think the targeted, specific nature of the texts, mentioning specific ballerinas in a very limited community is different, though I cannot perhaps adequately articulate why I feel that way.

I put myself in the mind of a NYCB ballerina who is asked to dance with a male dancer they know has texted words of that nature, about their colleagues and other dancers, and people they know, and I can see why the authors of those text messages were dismissed. That said, and I've said it before, I do think there is a perceived difference, from what I can glean from the NYCB's dancers social media response to the individual dismissed dancers between Finlay and Ramasar.

I don't listen to a lot of hip-hop, in relation to some artists, precisely because of the misogynistic and violent nature of the lyrics they use, but my decision to listen to that music is fundamentally different in my mind from being forced to work with someone I know thinks those things. And I think it's a different decision for the NYCB to commission works that feature gross lyrics, than for them to decide to continue to employ a man who, casually over texts, emoji salivates at the idea of sexually violating other artists, and refers to them as sluts.

And yea, not poor guy. You sent those messages. I'm sorry you had to pay a lawyer to defend yourself from a lawsuit that shouldn't have dragged you into it, but I'm not sure he possessed much character to assassinate.

I'm not sure that I can go with the idea that someone should lose a job over a thumbs-up emoji or a smiley face. Given that these were meant to be private exchanges and were only made public through theft by the plaintiff who then turned them over to her lawyer, it seems logical that they would have remained private and not impacted the workplace. Given what has come out of the mouths of some of the ballerinas, it's likely that they also engage in disgusting communications. I imagine that Waterbury's private texts to Finlay (and others) might come into play in this case. She definitely had a Chase Finlay Problem, but I don't see where any of the other defendants had anything to do with it.

Waterbury was obviously not trespassing in Finlay's home, so It's a legal question as to whether or not she had a right to look at Finlay's computer. Probably turns on the nature and length of their relationship. But there is also the question as to whether the defendants' emails contributed to the creation of a hostile work environment for other dancers. This issue is not about whether or not the defendants committed any crimes - it's a question of harassment and whether the company had a right to fire them. My guess is that it goes to both a standard morals clause that would be a part of any contract as well as sexual harassment guidelines. Again, not about exchanging the pictures. Far more complicated than a thumbs-up emoji or a smiley face.

The comments to this entry are closed.