Un nuevo comunicado del Met, más duro, como respuesta a la demanda de Levine:
Citar:
A Statement from Bettina (Betsy) B. Plevan, Partner, Proskauer, Counsel for the Metropolitan Opera
The Met terminated Mr. Levine’s contract on March 12, following an in-depth investigation that
uncovered credible and corroborated evidence of sexual misconduct during his time at the Met, as well as
earlier. It is shocking that Mr. Levine has refused to accept responsibility for his actions, and has today
instead decided to lash out at the Met with a suit riddled with untruths. There is no basis for Mr. Levine’s
assertion that the Met was on a vendetta against him, when in fact the Met supported him through
prolonged and repeated periods of illness that kept him from the podium, at one point spanning two entire
seasons (2011-12 and 2012-13). The Met only transitioned him from Music Director to Music Director
Emeritus at the end of the 2015-16 season when it became obvious that Levine was no longer physically
capable of carrying out his duties as Music Director. Nonetheless, the Met continued to support him in the
position of Music Director Emeritus, a position created especially for him, and only suspended its
relationship with him when Levine was accused of multiple acts of sexual misconduct, charges that have
been corroborated following a more than three-month investigation. During the course of the
investigation, Mr. Levine was offered numerous opportunities to be interviewed, beginning in
December. It was only when the investigation was wrapping up, upon realization that termination was
imminent, that he agreed to be interviewed, but on impossible terms, asking that the identity of his
accusers, who had been promised anonymity, be disclosed. The Met intends to defend this case
vigorously.
Y en el blog de La Cieca han colgado el texto íntegro de la demanda:
http://parterre.com/2018/03/16/suit-yourself/Según la
declaración de impuestos del Met de la última temporada en la que Levine fue director musical, este cobraba 1.8 millones de dólares (hay que buscar Phramus Inc., que es la sociedad a través de la que cobra Levine). En la demanda vemos ahora que como director emérito estaba cobrando 400 000 $ al año (más 27000 $ por función dirigida, que es el máximo que paga el Met). Como comparación, el director del coro Donald Palumbo cobra unos 550 000 $, el concertino algo más de 400 000 $ y Gelb dos millones.
Acusa en términos durísimos a Gelb de llevar años dirigiendo una campaña contra él: «Gelb continued to try and pressure Levine to step down as Music Director and retire from the Met by engaging in demeaning name calling more usually associated with a childhood bully than a professional music administrator». ¡En otro sitio se queja hasta de que lo llamó gordo!
En general la demanda está llena de «perlas»:
Citar:
Unbeknownst to the general public, Gelb' s decision to suspend Levine did not stem solely from the accusations of wrongdoing in the press. Rather, for years, Gelb sought to marginalize Levine's substantial influence at the Met and to dismantle the extraordinary team of unquestionable experience and talent, which under Levine's leadership, developed the Met [...] Gelb, acting in his personal capacity and his capacity as the Met's General Manager, made these defamatory statements out of ill will and spite against Levine, and as part of his continuing effort to marginalize, demean, and diminish Levine's image and reputation at the Met, in order publicly to embarrass Levine and permanently force him to leave the Met. In this respect, Gelb seeks to erase forty-six years of Levine's legendary achievements, [...]
Citar:
Unfortunately, it became clear during the course of Levine's discussions with the Met, that the Met's so-called investigation amounted to nothing more than a kangaroo court, where there was no intention on the part of the Met to be fair or impartial. Using McCarthyite tactics, the Met refused to provide Levine with any of the names of his accusers, before or during any proposed interview, and thereby denied Levine an ability to respond to the allegations against him, about which he had no prior indication
Citar:
Indeed, had the Met actually spoken with Levine before it suspended and ultimately terminated him, the Met would have learned that accusations in the press articles were inaccurate. For example, as will be discussed in detail below, Levine received numerous personal letters over the course of many years from one of his accusers, James Lestock ("Lestock"), which establish that Lestock' s accusations of sexual misconduct should not have been credited.[...]
Citar:
It was only upon learning that the allegations would be published in the press, that the Met and Gelb, cynically hijacking the good will of the #MeToo movement, brazenly seized on these allegations as a pretext to end a long-standing personal campaign to force Levine out of the Met and cease fulfilling its legally enforceable financial commitments to him.
Más concretamente, dice que su contrato solo podía ser cancelado unilateralmente por causas de fuerza mayor y que no había ninguna cláusula «ética» que les permitiese echarlo «due to alleged or actual misconduct or wrongdoing».