Just in: NY Phil confirms dismissal of two principals
OrchestrasDeborah Borda, acting CEO, confirmed today that principal oboe Liang Wang (pictured) and associate principal trumpet Matthew Muckey have been fired irrevocably over renewed allegations of historic sexual aggression.
The pair were first dismissed in September 2018 over claims dating back to 2010. They were reinstated 18 months later after union-ordered arbitration. The latest firing follows a lawyer-led investigation into recent media reports of specific acts against a former candidate member of the orchestra.
The Philharmonic added that 11 women made accusations against Wang, three against Muckey.
Both men and their lawyers deny the allegations. Today’s dismissal is supported by their union Local 802.
Borda said: ‘They are barred from the building. They will never appear on the stage again with the Philharmonic.’
In 2010, at the time of the alleged offences, Muckey was in a relationship with the pianist Yuja Wang.
11 women?!
The culture at the Philharmonic was/is so oppressive so toxic so ruled by omertà, that the women dared not speak up or speak out.
The culture was set at the top by Borda and the union the moment they reinstated Wang and Muckey, which broadcast to all employees cloud and clear, that no matter what happens, nothing will happen.
To his credit, Gary Ginstling did something meaningful and gutsy and immediate in suspending the two despite contractual commitments, then he was ousted, for what, apparently not providing enough chairs on stage in Shanghai while the Philharmonic was on tour, or some petty silliness like that.
The Philharmonic needs to get its priorities straight. Stage logistics is important, no institutional culture of demeaning and diminishing women is slightly more important.
Borda was not responsible for the reinstatement, which was ordered by the mandated arbitrator following a Union complaint, as the fact that she continued to push for their dismissal shows. The NY Phil statement at the time makes clear they were only reinstating them because they were forced to, against their will.
It is Borda’s fault for waiting 6 years to invoke the nonreengagement clause for every new season, in the meantime, she created this institutional culture of helplessness (“we were forced to, against out will”) and omerta, and more victims.
That is one irony of ousting the CEO and becoming interim CEO again, you own both the initial act of reinstatement (“our hands are tied”) and the latest act of nonreengagement (“our hands were free afterall, season after season”).
From AP: “It found that both gentlemen had been involved in sexual abuse and rape as well as abuse of power,” Borda said.
To say the actual word “rape”, a felony, is an explosive accusation with no proof at this point.
Borda better pray that the “rape” allegations are proven in a trial, otherwise, she is in for a helluva defamation lawsuit by Muckey and Wang!
Oh, I’m quite sure that Muckey and Wang won’t be filing any claims of defamation. They most certainly do not want to go through discovery. The truth is an absolute defense.
You clearly do not understand how defamation law works.
Proving defamation goes well beyond demonstrating that someone made a false statement. There are several hurdles, including:
Negligence. Did Borda make the statement without having enough information to reasonably believe what she was saying was true? She has access to multiple internal investigations and read various media stories about the accused. It’s hard to say she was just mouthing off without any evidence.
Reputation harm. Did the statement cause tangible, measurable harm? Given all of the allegations already out there, good luck proving the statement caused some level of additional harm.
Actual malice. There is an even higher bar for defamation when it involves public figures. Are orchestra musicians public figures? It depends, but Liang Wang in particular has said that he is by constantly talking about being a world-renowned musician with a very public profile. Actual malice means that Borda made the statement with the expressed purpose to cause harm. That is incredibly hard to prove and why so few public figures win defamation lawsuits.
Let them file suit against Borda, she has nothing to be concerned about and I can’t see a single thing she did wrong. Furthermore, the truth is always a defense against defamation AND the discovery evidence would certainly be quite interesting. Good luck to them in court.
It’s probably too late for a trial, either criminal or civil, because of the Statute of Limitations .
From the NYT:
“This year, the Philharmonic used a different strategy to dismiss …
The orchestra invoked a provision in the labor agreement known as a “non-reengagement” clause [based on “appropriate” reasons under the collective bargaining agreement instead of a “just cause” standard] …
Local 802, in consultation with the [Philharmonic], voted on Friday not to bring the matter to arbitration…
the Philharmonic assured the union that … the ensemble would not use the “non-reengagement” process to “undermine tenure or the just cause disciplinary process.”
Lawyers for Mr. Muckey and Mr. Wang said that the Philharmonic’s decision not to pursue a just cause termination reflected weaknesses in its case.”
1) If the lower standard “nonreengagement clause” always existed, why didn’t the Philharmonic invoke it in 2015 NOT to reinstate Muckey and Wang, or to NOT reengage them anytime afterwards?
Why wait 7 years and allow the abuse to continue and pile up?
2) Players SHOULD worry that management can at any time invoke “nonreengagement” to get around tenure and normal disciplinary processes. Management can initiate an investigation into a player’s private lives, dig up all sorts of activities unrelated to their job at the Philharmonic, and “nonreengage” the player under the lower standard of an “appropriate” reason.
3) That domestic abuse allegation made during a divorce? Oh not “appropriate”
That sealed arrest record? Tsk tsk tsk, hardly “appropriate”
That retweet of the slogan “From the River to the Sea”? So antisemitic and so not “appropriate”
And why not: Those audible flubs you made in the last 5 concerts? Not “appropriate” playing standard
All y’all are “nonreengaged” for the “appropriate” reason.
4) This saga is far from over.
I don’t know why you are protecting these guys after all that is known.
You seem to imply that this special use of a clause in the CBA will now be used in other situations. I very much doubt it.
It seems like it was the only way to get both the NYPO and Local 802 on the same page with all the evidence that was presented. No need for an arbitrator on this round.
If these two musicians are as good as they seem to be, they should get other work after some time and get a fresh start. It would be up to the next orchestra that hire them to decide if they have been “reformed” and fit into the culture of the orchestra.
If I were them, however, my ultimate concern would be if there might be some jail time on the horizon.
Then they would have to start practicing Shoenberg’s wonderful arrangement of Sing a Song of Sing Sing.
“ If these two musicians are as good as they seem to be, they should get other work after some time and get a fresh start. It would be up to the next orchestra that hire them to decide if they have been “reformed” and fit into the culture of the orchestra.”
This will never happen, at least not in America. They will never work in classical music in the US again. Maybe they can go to Europe, which seems to have less of a problem with aggressive men.
Personally I’m looking forward to seeing Muckey behind the register at Duane Reade
Actually, both of them should be in prison getting a taste of their own medicine.
they weren’t ‘aggressive’, they were predatory. Don’t white wash and diminish what they did.
“if there might be some jail time on the horizon”
There is jail time only if one iota of the allegation could be proven in court “beyond a reasonable doubt”; no one, not the accuser, not the Philharmonic, not NY Magazine, has been able to prove one iota even “for cause”. That’s not how America works, amico.
It’s most definitely over in terms of their careers with the Phil, and likely with any other orchestra. As Borda said, you will never see them on stage or with the orchestra again, and she’s right.
You don’t understand how unions work. Please stop.
1+2) If the orchestra invokes the “non-reengagement clause” for any reason, the union will grieve it. It is by no means a way for management to fire whoever they want without opposition. The union can grieve any action by management against members and force it to arbitration. This time around the union has made clear that will not attempt to block management from dismissing the musicians.
4) The saga is over. No doubt the musicians will file law suits looking for ways to extract money from the orchestra, but they will not take any lawsuit as so far as discovery and depositions because they do not want all of the various allegations becoming public. Most of the details have been so far kept confidential. This is why rich, litigious people like Elon Musk and Donald Trump always drop their lawsuits days before they’re scheduled to be deposed.
The other problem Muckey and Wang have is money. Fighting this will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. The NY Phil essentially has unlimited resources. It’s a huge gamble for them to spend a lot of money on this when they will likely have a hard time finding work for the next few years.
The best case scenario for Muckey and Wang is that the NY Phil agrees to a settlement to bring the matter to an end because continue public talk about this hurts their reputation too.
I understand how the union works. I’ve been in the union for forty years. This was done with the backing of the union. The union won’t help them.
I was responding to Vadis who is speciously suggesting that the orchestra could have used the “non-reengagement” clause at anytime to terminate the musicians.
Why would the NY Phil have to pay them a settlement? They violated the terms of their employment contracts, they were fired for cause. This was the result of a very lengthy investigation and arbitration process.
It’s possible that the determinations of a peer review are not grievable under the terms of the CBA. That’s how it works in my orchestra with peer review for dismissal for artistic reasons.
I am used to reading especially in Le Monde,Tirana Times and the Hackney and Kingland Gazette (Sun 12 Aug 1928) of ‘abuse’ (?) by those long Dead and unable to respond…often Men and Rich men…in their lifetime…Women that yet to come although in th 50s ‘Confidential’ did report on Hollywood’s Gals.
an accusation of Abuse (?) by Arfur a Scaffolder’s knee Wrencher to Doreen our local friday eve Barmaid at the Dog and E Minor,was rejected by the editor of Paris Mash and the accusation probably to be dropped as Arfur is
1: living and 2: Skint.
But above all, He would probably,by yobsville, ( no ! not supporters of a Presidential candidate,far from it)…be Applauded.
This current spate,Living Yet to be Proven,’ philanderer (?) is entertaining to the Prurient
…so who next ? Edward V11.
Sadly I cannot report that Mrs Thatcher RIP. kicked me under the table at a function.
Translate!
The non-reengagement clause is clearly what the NYP calls the peer review process for artistic inadequacy. It was never intended to be used for a just cause dismissal, which this is.
I wish that Wang’s attorney was wrong when he says this is a violation of the CBA, but he’s probably not. I’d be surprised if this didn’t result in further legal action, either in Federal court or at the NLRB. Maybe this is the only way the NYP could get these guys gone at this point; perhaps the strategy is to create pressure on Wang and Muckey to settle. There wasn’t much pressure on them to do so absent something like this.
They would have to challenge the CBA itself, not the firings. These musicians were investigated and enjoyed the due process they were afforded under the CBA. They can’t challenge the firings in court, they have to challenge the CBA. This is not a fight in which the union will support them, they are two credibly accused sex offenders. And the musicians probably don’t have the personal means to challenge the CBA in a federal court. This unfortunate and ugly saga is done and over. Their best bet is to lay low for a while, try to land a gig and/or freelance in Europe or Asia and return if or when this storm has been forgotten.
This part that you’ve written: “Management can initiate an investigation into a player’s private lives, dig up all sorts of activities unrelated to their job at the Philharmonic, and “nonreengage” the player under the lower standard of an “appropriate” reason.” – There is just one major problem in what you’ve written here:
This case IS related to their jobs at the NY Philharmonic, since the original rape accusation was towards a female colleague who was playing IN the NY Phil at the time, and whose tenure (not to mention another female colleague’s tenure, as a result of trying to defend the female colleague who’d accused these men of having raped her), got denied. So TWO NY Philharmonic musicians (who happen to be female) were denied tenure as a result of These two NY Philharmonic musicians’ alleged actions (who happen to male). I’d say you either haven’t read the full story about what happened or are completely misunderstanding that this entire case IS, actually, RELATED to their jobs at the Philharmonic.
I’m interested to see where their lawsuits against the NY Phil go.
Sounds like some lawyers are going to have a Happy Christmas.
What is ‘sexual aggression’ and is it a strategy to get all-women orchestras into the future? Discuss. In 20 words or less.
No.
Only need one word to “discuss” this ridiculous question.
Only ridiculous if you live under a rock. With the explosion of complaints about ‘sexual aggression’ (it’s always HE; no pronoun ambiguities here) it’s not a coincidence that this accompanies greater numbers of women in orchestras. We need to be told EXACTLY what sexual aggression is, and does this cover from rape which is a criminal offence? This article is ambiguous because it talks about “specific acts”. That’s the slippery slope to hell, right there. What I’m asking is whether it’s being designed that way.
And what about the fact that women are far more capable than men of destroying reputations through gossip, gas-lighting and isolation? I’d say the latter informs the former much of the time.
no, it’s patently ridiculous.
I can think of two words…
My late violin professor (female) played with Antonio Brico’s Women’s Orchestra in the 1930s. She had stories, even in that era.
(Sorry…21 words…)
My cousin was in Phil Spitalny’s all girl orchestra. That doesn’t fix the problem either. ..
Rosabeth Kanter at Harvard studied the effect of gender ratio on sexual harassment complaints and found that when a previously male-dominated institution reaches about 25% women, complaints decrease.
So even a bit of balance begins to address the problem you seem to be confused about.
Where can I find the original accusations? I can’t read Vulture article because it is blacked out for non-subscribers.
Good. Now address the incidents of misconduct that have occurred or may be currently occurring at Eastman, IU, UM, Ohio State, Cincinnati, Curtis, Juilliard etc. Having been on receiving end of unsolicited and completely undesired advances from teachers, professors and mentors, I say it is WAY past time to hold these people accountable and NOT hire them at a different institution where they can CONTINUE this aberrant behavior with other unsuspecting and innocent kids and adults!
I generally don’t comment here, but my annoyance is great. For those who immediately defend or jump to the assumption that this is some grand plot to create “all-female orchestras…” (Let me guess, you’re also a Q-Anon follower?)
Here is my issue: Sure, where there’s smoke, there’s not always fire, but — when there’s been large clouds of smoke for a DECADE, and there continues to be MORE smoke, to the point where for at least one of them, there’s a mushroom cloud… at what point can we accept that a) there’s at least fire, if not an incendiary bomb, and b) that it would be absolutely in the orchestra’s WORST interest to keep them on board?
Do you want the ensemble to exist or not? Because you can’t have both – you can’t have an ensemble that continues to harbor people who act in predatory, inappropriate, potentially illegal ways, and still maintain a board, donors and an approving, attending public.
Pick your battle; you can’t have both.
Yes, spot on. Thank you!
Thank goodness.
Now that the NY Phil finally closed its case on the toxic work environment of misogynistic men, let us move on to the quartets. Dover? First Violinist? Kicking women out from the quartet? Toxic?
This is truly one of the most noteworthy stories involving organized labor in the last decade.
CBAs rightfully protect employees from being terminated for capricious reasons. The challenge is that CBAs usually treat all fireable offenses the same, and always view management’s actions with suspicion.
And that’s why, as demonstrated by this nearly decade-long saga, it was so hard to fire Wang and Muckey for sexual assualt despite a preponderance of evidence from two extensive investigations. What ultimately pushed this one over the line was the extensive pressure from union members, as well as 75 percent of the orchestra musicians saying that they wanted them gone. Having employees essentially vote on if a peer should be fired for sexual harassment and/or abuse is highly problematic whether you are the victim or the accused.
If you want to avoid debacles like this, unions are going to have to give management more power.
The problem is that there WASN’T a preponderance of evidence, nothing that would hold up in a criminal court. Which is why it never went to court.
Folks need to stop throwing around terms they do not understand.
Criminal court requires the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.
Civil court requires a “preponderance of evidence.”
If you are fired and you sue your employer for wrongful termination, it goes to civil court. Thus, to win in civil court on this matter, the NYP just has to prove that there was a preponderance of evidence that the musicians were guilty of rape.
This is precisely how people accused of murder, for example, are able to be proven innocent in criminal court but lose a wrongful death lawsuit in civil court. If OJ wasn’t dead, you could ask him about that.
“Folks need to stop throwing around terms they do not understand.”
I’ll note that you’ve rather misstated how criminal verdicts work.
Suspects are not “proven innocent” in criminal courts, they are merely found “not guilty”… when the jury or judge decides the charge against them has not been *proven*. A gap in the evidence, an inconsistent witness… those could be enough for a “reasonable doubt” that the charge is proven.
If OJ actually had an actual court finding of actual innocence that might have ended any wrongful death suits before they were filed.
But he never had that.
You are mistaken. They were dismissed in 2018 based on having met the preponderance of evidence standard, but reinstated during the arbitration of 2020, which required the clear and convincing standard.
No, you’re wrong.
The arbitrator completely ignored the report because in his opinion: “events at issue occurred some 8, 10 and 12 years prior” and the “potential degradation of corroborative evidence over time.” Because “sex acts are normally performed privately,” he wrote, “the task of demonstrating assault charges, including those resulting from the refusal to take ‘no’ for an answer, can be difficult to prove.”
That’s simply ludicrous. For everyone here demanding that criminal court “beyond a reasonable doubt” standards be applied, in criminal court, you can convict people for rape that occurred a decade ago based purely on testimony.
It’s also a complete shortcoming of the CBA that an arbitrator was used in this situation.
The intent in the CBA is for the arbitrator to help swiftly bring binding resolution to typical disputes with employee right’s. Resolving matters involving sexual assault go well beyond the training and experience or arbitrators (the arbitrator in this case was a part-time musicians). You don’t even need a JD to be an arbitrator.
“Folks need to stop throwing around terms they don’t understand.” And in this case, it specifically applies to you, CHIMINEE. Exactly as I said:
https://www.prinz-lawfirm.com/our-blog/2024/july/what-we-can-learn-from-the-ny-philharmonic-sexua/
“ The two men challenged their firings through their union, which kept them employed until their grievances were resolved. An independent arbitrator used the highest evidentiary standard, “clear and convincing,” to analyze whether they were properly fired. That was a higher standard than used in the NYP’s investigation, which employed the “preponderance of evidence” threshold”.
Now please stop posting.
Once again, Cheminee, you are dead wrong.
From the Vulture article:
https://www.vulture.com/article/new-york-philharmonic-sexual-assault-scandal.html
“According to the Philharmonic, Jones’s investigation had operated under common workplace evidentiary standards, which would mean that she looked for a “preponderance of evidence” that the men were guilty. Bloch’s review used a higher bar, that of “clear and convincing” evidence.”
Is Cheminee intentionally misleading or just thick?
Preponderance of evidence isn’t the standard, this action isn’t taking place in court.
Management had plenty of power back in 2010 to deal with this situation. They decided not to. Everything since is a consequence of that failure to manage.
Some time ago, news articles, officials, police, began referring to men who commit unspeakable acts and crimes as “gentlemen.”
A gentleman does not commit crime, force themselves on women/ladies. They are “gentle” men.
Borda makes the same mistake in her description of the men of the Philharmonic who are not gentlemen.
Er.. that is not the correct description of “gentle”-man, and the origin of the phrase. Men were either “gentle” or “simple”, which roughly corresponds to wealthy/sophisticated/well-mannered and poor/uneducated/rough-mannered. We sometimes use the word “genteel” to have a similar meaning.
A gentleman does not even need to ask, it just happens.
While these guys are probably scumbags, there hasn’t been any official forensic evidence or criminal charges brought against them in a court of law. They will certainly file lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars against the NY Philharmonic and the orchestra has a legitimate risk of going bankrupt from this. It’s a wretched organization that has been run into the ground by poor management. NY needs a new #1 orchestra that plays the classics instead of this DEI bullsh*t, that doesn’t have a transgender/drag queen (Thorgy Thor) as their spokesperson/social media representative.
Had he stayed with Yuga, none of this would have happened. Of course she had a choice in the situation.
Too much of the creative-cultural community brings a flaky type of politics into its way of dealing with the Harvey Weinsteins (or NY Phil players, Placido Domingos, etc) of society. They’re either treated way too leniently or they’re clumsily demonized Example: Famous Hollywood animator John Lasseter forced out for being a back-slapping-type guy with his employees.
Look at how a P Diddy right now isn’t being condemned the way he should. Look at all the people in the creative community who knew his antics but didn’t say – much less do – anything. Worse of all, some of them brought a “entertainers are cool and funky” attitude to his behavior.
Too much of your commentary is mischaracterizing events.
I followed the Lasseter affair closely.
It was more than a few hearty back slaps. It was years of kissing, grabbing and groping subordinates who were powerless in the organization.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/john-lasseters-pattern-alleged-misconduct-detailed-by-disney-pixar-insiders-1059594/
Huh? Did you notice the two main people in that article said they departed not because of Lasseter being a Weinstein-type guy, but for creative/political differences. If the workplace were P-Diddy-fied (or Jeffrey-Epstein-ed), they didn’t clearly state that. Their response to the reporter instead ended with a reaction along the lines of “DEI is good! We need ESG!”
The politics of people always needs to be first scrutinized in order to figure out the Rashomon effect.
As of November 7, both musicians appear on NYPhil’s website. I guess that they are still members of the orchestra.
Trumpets
Christopher Martin – Principal Trumpet, The Paula Levin Chair
Matthew Muckey – Associate Principal Trumpet
Ethan Bensdorf
Thomas Smith
Oboes
Liang Wang – Principal Oboe, The Alice Tully Chair
Sherry Sylar – Associate Principal Oboe
Robert Botti
Ryan Roberts