« observations 2/16 | Main | Bouder's on the pity-pot »

February 20, 2019


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

I've read NYCB's (long) answer. I don't think any reasonable person ever thought Waterbury had a realistic claim against the company. As far as I'm concerned, the central issue is the behavior of the three former principal dancers: both Waterbury's claim against them and the company's justification in their removal from the roster. How this plays out in court is far more significant than anything Alistair or Gia may have to say about it.

It definitely will be interesting to follow that secondary issue but I doubt that it will ever play out in court. The dancers' union and the company may be bound to arbitration in most disputes, but we'll see. There's certainly a lot at stake, though.

The sloppiness of writing and failure to verify some basic facts came back to bite Mr. Jordan Merson. Among numerous denials of alleged facts there were only few admissions by NYCB. And one of those admitted facts was this: Yes, it is true that George Balanchine and Lincoln Kirsten founded both the school and the company.

True. And note that NYCB is asking for attorney's fees and reimbursement of all costs, which is good. Frankly, I don't like the idea of my donations going toward paying for this nonsense.

I think Merson is going to have a lot to answer to especially with regards to Longhitano. As others have mentioned, Merson did absolutely no fact-checking, or basic due diligence, or he did and didn't care, but rather immediately took his client's statements and went to the media and press. From what I understand, lawyers are given a decent amount of leeway because they are essentially mouthpieces for their clients, but they still have a responsibility to act ethically and at least determine some basis of fact. Would love to hear an attorney's opinion on this if any counsel is reading these threads.

The comments to this entry are closed.