« Food for thought From Soup to Nuts | Main | De Luz departs for de homeland »

March 28, 2019


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

I find the legal minutia of the Waterbury case fascinating. Can what she found on Finlay's computer be excluded because she didn't have specific permission on that occasion to use it, even though she had permission to be on the premises and had previously had authorization to use it? A private citizen can produce evidence in a criminal case obtained without a search warrant as long as he/she was not acting at the best of the police. But that's a matter for a criminal case. In this instance, the proverbial toothpaste is out of the tube - what was on the computer is public, and was the basis for the controversial actions by NYCB. What happens to Ms. Waterbury and Mr. Longhitano and their lawsuits will have virtually no impact on how the firings are remembered.

Solor, I tend not to agree with your statement that what was on the computer is public. The public hasn't seen any of it short of a few texts included in a filing. The plaintiff may not have had any more right to open Finlay's device and read his mail than she would have had to slice open an envelope or even look at the contents in an unsealed envelope in his residence. Nor would she have the right to steal or copy the contents and try to use them for her own benefit.

We don't know how specific or vague or enforceable the morals clause is in the NYCB/AGMA agreement. But the fact that NYCB's reason for ultimately firing Ramasar and Catazaro had to do with surveying the other dancers, some of whom said they would not be "comfortable" working with them, probably isn't a very good reason.

Is it possible to get second-hand awkwardness? Because that’s what I felt watching Osipova’s video. Yikes.

lol, yukionna. I loved how they zoomed in at the end to capture her expression.

I didn't mean to imply that the communications were public - only that they are now out in the open. Regardless of how they were made public, their exposure is what caused the result.. They can fight out the legal battles but in the end, unless the communciations are proved to be false, what remains is what was communicated and how that resulted in what happened to the three men.

The comments to this entry are closed.