Only one loser in the Met vs Levine

The case details that are spilling out on both sides by way of press releases are intentionally degrading.

The Met justifies sacking James Levine on the grounds that its former music director ‘used his reputation and position of power to prey upon and abuse artists’. It cites instances of shared masturbatory fantasies, forced kissing and other unwanted advances on young men.

Levine’s lawyers say in their filing that ‘Levine did not commit any acts of sexual misconduct against any individuals, much less the unnamed individuals referred to.’

The Met says it has suffered ‘significant reputational and economic harm as a result of the publicity associated with Levine’s misconduct’ and will continue to do so.

Of all the claims and counter-claims from either side, this statement rings truest.

The longer the wrangle over Levine’s dismissal drags on, the more the Met sheds in status and grandeur. This may be Levine’s legal strategy, calculating that he has not much left to lose.

But the big loser in this case is dignity – both the Met’s and Levine’s. Neither will be left with a mitigating figleaf.

 

share this

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on google
  • And to add insult upon injury and unrelated to the Levine affair, the Met’s bond rating was also downgraded which means it will be more expensive for the institution to borrow. Bad timing in every which way. But back to the Levine affair. This is really quite simple: both sides are losers already. One because of decades long unlawful predatory actions; the other because of decades long unlawful institutional enabling and cover up. And probably worse than that.

      • “Innocent until proven guilty” only applies in a court of law. Outside a courtroom you’re perfectly within your rights to instead take the view that “there’s no smoke without fire”. (And boy was there a lot of smoke in this case.)

        • Nevertheless, Levine categorically denies absolutely everything. In the words of his lawyers: “Levine did not commit any acts of sexual misconduct against any individuals, much less the unnamed individuals referred to.” Either L is really hugely brass-necked, or the smoke was coming from somewhere else.

          On the other hand, what’s a bit of bacha bazi between civilized gentlemen, huh? The worst that could happen now is the reproach of “cultural appropriation”. (sarcasm ends)

          • Jobe. You don’t seem to understand the difference between a civil case and a criminal case. In a criminal case, Levine is “innocent until proven guilty”. But this is a civil case. In a civil case, because there are TWO parties, it is the “balance of probabilities”. The courts have to find for one side or the other.

    • I remember the stories of Mr L’s alleged behavior all over local opera companies in the 1980s. Those were accompanied by stories of the Met’ board allegedly paying off the families of his alleged victims. If true, it is truly disturbing and disgusting that any of it occurred, particularly the cover-up. Honestly, he was never a favorite musician of mine- and when the BSO hired him as well, it was just too much. There are many good conductors in the world: they don’t draw this kind of attention and they are possibly much better musicians.

      • All they did in Boston was complain about Ozawa, who made many, very good recordings with them (not to mention one of the longest tenures ever). They couldn’t wait to get Levine up there. He was a perfect fit – considering all that was going on with the local Catholic priests at that time. As difficult as Ozawa could be to deal with, he’s still vastly more ‘classy’ than Levine could ever hope to be. Just one person’s opinion.

  • The Met could have easily responded to Levine’s suit without countersuing.

    I have no doubt that the Met is trying to do this in order to gain more leverage to negotiate a better deal and especially not to have to pay damages for defamation.

    In other words, this is posturing. If the Met is countersuing then it is the Met’s legal strategy to drag this out, not Levine’s, who, if he wanted to, could probably file another suit as a civil rights case of age discrimination.

    I suspect that the Met had already offered a settlement when they first fired Levine although nothing was said about this in Levine’s court petition.

    At the last court conference the judge apparently wanted the parties to work towards an agreement and perhaps Levine is not, at least at this point in time, willing to accept the settlement the Met wants to offer (or could it possibly be that he seriously expects that he could be reinstated?).

    As of now the next “conference” in front of the judge will be June 27, 2018, although after this counter suit this conference might be adjourned. Should be very interesting.

    There may be a lot of brinkmanship up to a trial date and then a settlement just before this is scheduled to go to trial.

    I agree, however, that this suit destroys the dignity of every person and institution concerned.

    It is hard to believe that intelligent adults are going through this. Although perhaps Gelb and Levine cannot get past their bitterness and personal feelings of being disrespected, cooler heads, who do not have an interest in racking up legal fees, need to prevail.

    WHERE IS THE MET BOARD?

    • Where is the Met board, you ask? Shaking in their boots. Or more likely rapidly seeking legal counsel. But where were they when truly needed? Nowhere and everywhere covering up Levine’s tracks.

    • Sharon writes: Levine, if he wanted to, could probably file another suit as a civil rights case of age discrimination.

      To make this claim, Levine would have to show he is still capable of performing his duties and he was only fired because of his age. Neither seem plausible.

  • It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.
    In the Met’s counter-suit, they claim that Levine sexually abused and harassed one member of the orchestra as well as one member of the Lindemann Young Artist program.
    I would think these two instances alone would have been enough to get Levine terminated since apparently it took place at the Met.
    I think the Met’s counter-suit is probably just some sort of legal signal that they have no intention of backing down and offering him a settlement.
    No doubt that the longer this drags out, the more the public will find out about Levine’s abusive and harassing behaviour.
    Surely Levine’s attorneys won’t want this case to go to court.
    It’s too bad Levine doesn’t simply retire and fade away.
    If he really cared about the Met as much as he claims to, that is what he would do.
    But no, his massive ego is getting in the way, and CAMI still wants their cut.
    This really needs to end soon.
    But thankfully Maestro Yannick Nézet-Séguin is Met’s the new music director.
    I for one, am looking forward to next season, and seeing Falstaff, Pelleas, and the Ring cycle all without Levine! Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Two days ago there was a lawsuit filed against University of Southern California and a staff gynecologist who was abusing women for decades. The action represents just four of the many names but is certain to be expanded. The university is in the complaint because there is expected to be evidence that the university was aware of the problem and did nothing. Remember a few weeks ago Michigan State announced a settlement of the Dr. Nassar suit and the total was an astounding 500 million for the very same reason. Moody’s just announced that MSU does have the money to settle but you can imagine how their endowment will look after this. An attorney who worked on the MSU case is now representing the complainants in the USC filing. The Met should hope than none of their complainants are able to find his phone number.

  • I know people who frequently saw Levine with quite seriously underage “boyfriends” backstage at concerts, and also at dinners and receptions after concerts. Although this, in itself, proves nothing, it is a very strong indicator. Another classical music performer, although equally perverted, did such things quietly in Thailand, and was/is much more discreet about it when touring.

    • That second sentence represents a malicious libel. It should be taken down or specific proof should be provided. Since there is no proof whatever – and that issue has been knocked on the head in this forum and elsewhere several times, the writer should immediately apologise in writing on this blog.

        • I did not make any libellous comment about anyone: no specific person, or action thereof, was named, so I am not responsible for what others may infer. Let us also not forget that, in legal history, both convictions and case dismissals (which may simetimes involve out-of-court settlements) are not always just.

    • What does “seriously underage” mean? Below the age of consent, or simply below the age that the speaker thinks is appropriate?

      Somehow I doubt that James Levine was showing up at public events with a 13-year-old on his arm. And if his companion for a given evening was 17 or older, and not a subordinate, then it may be good gossip but it’s not really our business.

      • Mr. Ashkenazy’s total silence on his allegations, at least one of which is a fabrication, speaks volumes!

        • Who is Mr Ashkenazy? Are you referring to one of Vladimir Ashkenazy’s sons, Vladimir Jr and Dmitri both of whom are professional musicians?

          • It really does not matter who he is. The fact is that he has spewed out a fabrication against a musician, a fabrication that was actually proved to be so in a court of law. Having failed to apologise and withdraw the allegation, whatever else he contributes to this forum will be taken purely as fanciful conjecture and not fact. Shame on him!

  • These are great days for lawyers. They are the only ones to go through this with gusto and profit. The rest as NL says have lost their dignity and it will be hard to recover any of it whatever the results of suit and countersuit, which given the way things go here will be settled out of court after all the dirty linen has been aired

  • Truly, wonders never cease. Not only Marcus Clayton is a better judge of musical talent than such ignorant amateurs as Karajan, Bernstein, Itzhak Perlman, Evgeny Kissin, Placido Domingo, Christa Ludwig (and countless others), but now he is also a great expert on legal matters. Some people are just preternaturally gifted…

    Counter-claims in a defendant’s reply are asserted in the majority of civil lawsuits. The Met hasn’t been dealt a very good hand here – Levine’s contract is ironclad. This isn’t “employment at will”, and the terms of the contract govern his relationship with the Met.

    Now that they have alleged the specific instances of supposed misconduct, they’ve open the door to Levine’s lawyers issuing subpoenas to every individual who has made such allegations. And I wouldn’t want to be cross-examined by Elkan Abramowitz for all the tea in China!

    The courts are generally reluctant to grant “reputational damages” outside of the context of legal actions for defamation. And under New York law, defamation requires a false statement by the defendant concerning the plaintiff. The Met cannot possibly claim it was defamed by Levine.

    As for the economic damages, the Met will have to prove that the allegations against Levine are the “proximate cause” of its economic vows. It wouldn’t be too difficult for Levine’s attorneys to demonstrate that the Met has been mismanaged for years.

    Finally, I find the instances of “misconduct” rather ludicrous – he talked to somebody about their sex life? Oh, pass the smelling salts….

    • The wonder is that most of your claims would seem to be incorrect, Mark. To wit:

      Marcus Clayton seemed to express his view of Mr. Levine’s conducting, perhaps, but never claimed to be a “better judge of musical talent” than anyone here, much less a professional musician. Neither did he pose as “a great expert on legal matters”, although you certainly have.

      The MET’s hand looks robust to me. Levine’s contract, which I doubt you’ve read, is unlikely to insulate him from charges of sexual harrassment. (Of course, if you have read it, then perhaps you’re on Levine’s legal team, in which case we all can clearly see what you’re doing here.)

      Several of the individuals who’ve accused Levine have already gone public, and many more undoubtedly will, including some of those whose complaints were mentioned in the MET’s filing. Elkan Abramowitz or not, there’s an evolving appreciation in society of the secondary abuse that abuse victims must suffer to be heard, including ready dismissal by the likes of you and your smelling salts, Mark.

      Defamation of the MET by Levine is not the linchpin of the MET’s suit – they contend that their MD and head of their young artist development program was a sexual predator whose predations harmed the institution. As they have…

      Finally, Mark, you say “find the instances of ‘misconduct’ rather ludicrous”. Are you referring to accounts of Mr. Levine making aggressive sexual advances on at least two 16 year old boys? Or to other accounts, which have Levine propositioning members of his orchestra? I assume you are, in which case I find your views deplorable.

      • I hope you are not an attorney. If you are, call your law school and ask for your money back.

        1. Sexual harassment has to be proven in a court of law. Since there are no criminal proceedings against Levine, the Met will have to prove all the allegations in its counterclaims by a preponderance of the evidence. The same standard applies to Levine’s lawsuit.

        2. Levine’s contract has no termination provision of any sort. Therefore, the question whether Levine’s termination was justified or not will be up the jury. For example, in California the CA Supreme Court ruled in Cotran v. Rollins that if a discharged employee denies committing the acts that that provoked the decision to terminate employment, the jury’s role is to decide whether the employer acted with “‘a fair and honest cause or reason, regulated by good faith”.

        3. Your tender concern for the “victims” who waited for decades to tell their sob stories is very touching. However, if they want the law to be on their side, they’ll have to respect and abide by the rules of legal proceedings. They are free to seek legal representation, tell their story in court and be cross-examined by the opposing counsel. The self-professed “victimhood” doesn’t confer any other legal rights on people, certainly not the right to an automatic credibility.

        4. I am not now and have never been Levine’s attorney.

        5. As you can imagine, I couldn’t care less whether or not you approve of my views. I am not in the habit of pearl clutching and moralizing. The only definition of guilt I recognize is the legal one. Everything else is claptrap.

        • Err…your (1) “preponderance of evidence” and (2) “due process” aren’t a very high bar for the Met to reach. Levine will pretty much have to show the allegations are false and the Met has behaved maliciously. And the fact there is no termination clause isn’t particularly important; in principle an employee can still be fired for inappropriate behaviour.

          • A preponderance of the evidence requires the jury to believe one side more than the other – it is hardly easy and would depend on the attorneys and the evidence.

            The fact that an employee can be fired doesn’t mean that a breach of contract is excusable. You are confusing employment with contractual obligations.
            Levine fulfilled his obligations by being available for work, the Met breached.

            No misconduct is alleged to have occurred during the term of the present contract. So purely from the point of contract law, the Met can make some sort of an argument as to the contract being unenforceable either due to fraud in inducement (that is, Levine withheld information from them – however, they’ll have to prove the incidents alleged etc. At any rate, fraudulent inducement claims are rarely successful in New York) or on public policy grounds (even more difficult to prove).

  • If it were the end of the Met, that would be no great cultural loss to me. The building is ridiculous. The people are ridiculous. I heard “Gotterdaemerung” there, of all things, and it sounded as though there was a mute put on everything. Their radio broadcasts sound awful. The casts are usually a mixed bag, at best. Yet, the money they spend/waste there is obscene. I thought the old City Opera – when it was being run by Beverly Sills – was much better in every way. Good riddance – bye, bye to Levine, Gelb and the whole lot. Turn the orchestra into a full time competitor of the Phil.

  • Wonder what this will do to the Met’s financial picture. Although I had believed that I knew something about non profit management I was surprised to hear that the Met was allowed to issue bonds.

    Not only will the Met have difficulty selling them but I am concerned about what is going to happen to its grants, both from government and private foundations. Would any organization, foundation or endowment be willing to pay millions of dollars knowing that it is going to legal fees and court settlements?

    The Trump administration wanted to end the NEA and federal government money for the arts. It would be easy for those who do not believe in government money in the arts to point to the Met as an example as to why government should get out of arts funding.

    I have perhaps what could be called a prurient interest in this. However, I know that Gelb is right, this is a tragedy for all concerned AND ESPECIALLY for the institution of the Met Opera itself and its 3000 innocent employees. Let’s hope that this mess can be settled quickly or the Met may be unable to survive long term.

  • I sincerely doubt that the Met will be unable to survive due to this Levine debacle.
    They still have many, many donors, both private and corporate, who continue to donate to the Met.
    Granted, this Levine mess is arguably the biggest scandal in the Met’s long history but I think they will be fine once this sordid affair is over with.
    Over the last several seasons, the Met has fared very well musically in the hands of other conductors. They don’t and never have, needed Levine.
    Maestro Yannick Nézet-Séguin is a quite capable conductor, and they are fortunate to have them as their new music director.
    The era of Levine at the Met is over and done with.
    Time to move on…..

  • When I mentioned above the USC lawsuit filed last week there were four complainants in the suit. The LA Times today reports there are now 300 who have come forward. This is a lawsuit against the abusive gynecologist AND the university who ignored the problem for decades and the total settlement will likely be in 9 figures. This is not Levine and the Met fighting to court but is a different lawsuit which could attack both but getting a judgement from The Endowment. The earlier half-billion Michigan State settlement resulted in the entire MSU management team sacked. There are now major voices demanding the USC president resign. I would not be surprised that such a suit against both Levine and the Met is in the mind of attorneys as we speak. During Levine’s entire tenure at the Met (1976-2016) the number of complaintants would likely be three figures and proving that the Met was aware should not be difficult.

  • Nimitta,
    I hope you are not an attorney. If you are, call your law school and ask for your money back.

    1. Sexual harassment has to be proven in a court of law. Since there are no criminal proceedings against Levine, the Met will have to prove all its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. The same standard applies to Levine’s claims.

    2. Levine’s contract has no termination provision of any sort. Therefore, the question whether Levine’s termination was justified or not will be up the jury. For example, in California the CA Supreme Court ruled in Cotran v. Rollins that if a discharged employee denies committing the acts that that provoked the decision to terminate employment, the jury’s role is to decide whether the employer acted with “‘a fair and honest cause or reason, regulated by good faith”.

    3. Your tender concern for the “victims” who waited for decades to tell their sob stories is very touching. However, if they want the law to be on their side, they’ll have to respect and abide by the rules of legal proceedings. They are free to seek legal representation, tell their story in court and be cross-examined by the opposing counsel. The self-professed “victimhood” doesn’t confer any other legal rights on people, certainly not the right to an automatic credibility.

    4. I am not now and have never been Levine’s attorney.

    5. As you can imagine, I couldn’t care less whether or not you approve of my views. I am not in the habit of pearl clutching and moralizing. The only definition of guilt I recognize is the legal one. Everything else is claptrap

    • Mark, do you REALLY believe that this mess will actually end up in a jury trial?

      In my non legal opinion there may be a lot of brinkmanship up through the time that the jury is selected, which may take quite a while considering that this has had so much publicity.

      However if both parties refuse to settle and are willing to see a jury trial to completion everyone will lose; it will– take up a huge amount of money in legal fees and settlements, take up a lot of time of the Met’s administrative staff as well as Levine’s and his staff, be very emotionally taxing for the parties in the dispute as well as any witness who testifies on the stand, continue to destroy everyone’s reputation by keeping the sordidness and coverup in the news, even for those who may eventually be found innocent.

      I used to be a caseworker in child support enforcement. I found that although emotions may run very high in divorce and paternity cases, even among the custodial parents who may have been treated very badly emotionally and financially 90% wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible with a minimum of legal action and were willing to settle, even if it meant that they would receive less money, or sometimes even no money, than what otherwise would have been due them. I used to have to beg custodial parents to go through with a court action “If you do not go forward you are stealing the money that is due your kids” because custodial parents, most of whom desperately needed the money, did not want to go through all the unpleasantness.

      How much more so here and how less Levine and the Met need the money than my former clients!

      How could the Met and Levine possibly be so foolish as to actually go to trial especially when they supposedly have the best legal minds, and ones who are not hungry for legal fees, to advise them?

      • Sharon, Levine has nothing to lose. His net worth is probably at least $20-30M. He’ll spend $1M on legal fees, just to make his point.
        And, as I noted above, if the Met can’t prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence, it will be in the hook for the contractual payments.
        I am not saying the possibility of a settlement doesn’t exist, but it will be clearer once discovery is complete.

    • Mark, I believe that Levine has plenty to lose, apart from money , namely any work he may want to do in the future, his social and professional networks, his reputation, his legacy, and what is left of his health.

      But, Mark, could Frankster possibly be correct? Could it be that the real reason that this suit is moving forward so publicly, when everything could have been done very discreetly, is to try to prevent the alleged “me too” victims from suing either Levine or the Met?

      The more I think about it, the more this reasoning makes the most sense if they do go to trial or even if they do not but there is a lot of public court maneuvering.

      Pai, if you read his website, wants to raise a lot of money to take a controlling stock interest in companies and steer them in a socially progressive direction, as well as produce progressive shows for commercial TV. He also, if you look him up under “Shoky Pai” on Google, wants to be a prominent socialite among the progressive crowd. For him, there is really no such thing as bad publicity. He would have a strong interest to sue.

      Lestock has publicly stated that he lives in genteel poverty and may blame Levine for not doing more for him.

      Several other alleged victims appear not to have been too successful in the music profession.

      By having a public trial Levine will probably show that the alleged sexual harassment and pedophilia cannot be proved in a court of law and the Met wo;; sjpw that it is taking all due diligence to protect its employees and students. If the jury agrees with either or both of these positions lawsuits initiated by the alleged victims would be futile.

      Given the amount of the payouts in recent me too lawsuits and hush money, both before and after Levine was fired, both Levine and the Met have a VERY strong incentive to warn those who consider themselves to be their “me too” victims that suing does not pay. Although the lawsuit on the face of it is foolish and could be the potential downfall of both parties, in reality both Levine and the Met will win if this circus prevents others from suing.

      I am not saying that Levine and the Met are directly collaborating, although it may be possible, but if they are worried about being slapped by other lawsuits their interests are in alignment.

      I hate sounding like a paranoid conspiracy theorist but I cannot imagine another reason why otherwise normally intelligent well balanced people would put themselves through this, financially, reputationally, and emotionally. It explains the press releases, the articles in the NY Times which is normally more reserved about such matters, the fact that the court date for a conference which normally might be closed to the public was announced in Billboard magazine on line and I believe the Boston Globe, the fact that the court dates have happened so quickly, and it especially explains why the parties have not quietly reached an agreement.

      What do you think?

      On the plus side, a show trial with people who definitely know how to direct and produce a dramatic show would be a lot of fun to watch and follow.

      • Sharon, I believe that the statute of limitations (unless the law has been changed, in New York it’s three years from the date of harassment, and with the federal authorities [EEOC], it’s 300 days from the date of harassment) essentially precludes any civil suit against Levine and/or the Met.

        I certainly agree with you that many of the accusers are out to ride the wave of the #MeToo movement to the new financial or career opportunities (especially that pathetic fellow Shoki, judging by the information you’ve cited about his plans). But the law (as far as I know) isn’t on their side.

        Also, it seems to me that everybody’s underestimated Levine’s resolve. He is 75 and in poor heath, so proving that he’s been defamed is too important for him to just give up and count the remaining days.

        • Mark, your remarks here are so obviously absurd and, well, stupid, and you should think about posting further. The many young boys who have been abused by Levine are a matter of public record. Hundreds of people in an around the Met were aware of it. If you have not payed attention, you have only yourself to blame. If you would like more information you can Google the topic, particularly the Met’s own research. You should also Google “class action lawsuit” because you somehow missed that month in “law school.” It would not be at all difficult to show that the Metropolitan Opera had ample warning about his behavior during his entire tenure there.

          • Frankster, unless presenting yourself as a shrill fool is a hobby of yours, you might want to refrain from using the legal terms and rules you obviously don’t understand.

            1. An allegation made by a member of the public in print or electronic media isn’t “a matter of public record.”
            “Public records” are the information or documents that are made by or filed with a government agency and are required by law to be kept and maintained. The only public record pertaining to all this silly business is the Illinois investigation that has resulted in no charges of any sort.

            2. As I mentioned before, a personal injury lawsuit against Levine or the Met is generally time-barred. A “class action” isn’t an entitlement – the court has to certify it. And the plaintiffs’ lawyers will have considerable difficulty in convincing the court that the statue of limitations should be tolled when the most recent allegation dates from 20 years ago.
            The USC case you cite is inapplicable here, as the plaintiffs’ request that the statute of limitations be tolled is based on the claim that until recently, they were not aware of the true nature of the doctor’s actions.

            3. Furthermore, it is quite possible the employees of the Met are bound by a mandatory arbitration provision and/or have waived their right to participate in a class action (the Supreme Court has just ruled such provisions enforceable in Epic Systems v. Lewis).

        • Yes, Levine seems determined to go down all guns blazing. But even if he wins the defamation case (which seems, frankly, unlikely), he still has to show he is capable of performing his duties if he wants to be reinstated.

  • It is astounding to me that Levine, who has allegedly already caused so much harm, would cause furtherd deep harm by suing the Met. His harm continues. Some passages from the Boston Globe, concerning Levine’s teaching practices in the later 60s and 70s.

    “We’d have a mutual masturbation session where we’d have to blindfold ourselves and pair off in twos,” said Ifsich, who first described the alleged encounters to The New York Times. “The test for us would be: Can you tell if it’s a girl or a guy?”

    And Lynn Harell, who was a student of Levine’s at the time:

    “There were just a couple of girls in this group, and people would be blindfolded,” said Harrell, who said he did not recall mutual masturbation sessions. “She would come to people: The idea was to prevent yourself from getting an erection.”

    The whole article here:
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/03/02/cleveland/cn2Sathz0EMJcdpYouoPjM/story.html

    He does things like that, then wants to force the Met to continue giving him additional exorbitant sums of money.

    • What you have described happened a couple of years before Levine joined the Met.

      It could well be that Levine truly believes that what he did, especially after he joined the Met was not so terrible. Casting couch behavior in those days was not considered so terrible (I am not justifying this) and people, especially in those days and those who engaged same sex sexual activity, acted as if they were under different rules than nowadays, with regard to sexual harassment and relationships with those considerably younger, as long as they were not younger than about 16.

      Again, I am not justifying this–if a person feels coerced, pressured, or lacking realistic choices, either directly or indirectly, with regard to sexual activity with someone with power over him/her , then he/she is being coerced.

      However most people are experts at rationalizing their actions because they want to believe that they are good people. This might be especially true for someone who considers himself/herself as idealistic as Levine, according to his interviews, considers himself to be.

      We’ll just have to see what happens

      • Well, Sharon, the world has changed. Today Harvey Weinstein is turning himself in for criminal charges. The company he founded, one of the most famed and successful production companies of our time, is now bankrupt. “Casting couch” activity was always immoral but is now disastrous. The Met knew about the young people who had to say “yes” to the Maestro not be turned away. The Met was finally compelled to officially respond and their investigators talked to some 70 people and they were “shocked… shocked!” to hear what they had to say. You will note that this report avoided “what the Met knew and when did they know it.” Can the Met dodge a class action lawsuit from the many young people, far more than the 70 already interviewed, whose careers and lives were damaged by the 40 years of Levine’s rule? The financial redress for those complainants could total many millions and endanger the very existence of the Met. As I have pointed out, the USC class action suit started late last week with four young women. Today it has 300.

        • If Mark is right, it’s too late in New York State for most if not all of the victims to file against either Levine or the Met.

  • “The financial redress for those complainants could total many millions and endanger the very existence of the Met”

    If so, then tear the building down in the process and start over. Build a real opera house that truly sounds like something – not just a huge barn with a huge stage to put on Barnum & Bailey acts, choreographed by Cecil B. Demille.

  • When the Met is totally free of James Levine, the horrid Daisy Soros, and setting operas in modern day Coney Island…..then restoring its reputation just might be possible.

  • >