Russian soprano's case alleging national original discrimination against the Met Opera to proceed
The decision by U.S. District Judge Analisa Nadine Torres in Manhattan was made public Wednesday, a day after it was issued. The case, which will proceed alongside her claim of gender discrimination, has yet to be scheduled for trial.
Met General Manager Peter Gelb had demanded that she repudiate Putin shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, but she refused and was withdrawn from three Met productions. The Met replaced her with Ukrainian soprano Liudmyla Monastyrska in at least one of those productions.
Last August, Torres dismissed the performer's national original discrimination claim, when she also threw out allegations of defamation and breach of contract. But in her latest decision, the judge wrote that the 'allegations support the inference that Netrebko's replacement by non-Russian artists occurred under circumstances giving rise to at least a 'minimal' inference of discrimination.'
The American Guild of Musical Artists filed a grievance on Netrebko's behalf and arbitrator Howard C. Edelman ruled in February 2023 that the Met violated the union's collective bargaining agreement when it canceled deals with Netrebko for three productions. Edelman awarded compensation the union calculated at $209,103.48.
Torres allowed Netrebko to proceed with her separate allegation of gender discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. She said the Met treated Netrebko's male counterparts with connections to Putin and the Russian government more favorably. She cited bass-baritone Evgeny Nikitin and baritones Igor Golovatenko and Alexey Markov, who have continued to sing at the Met.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
9 minutes ago
- Newsweek
We Must Protect American Courtrooms From Foreign Interference
In most American courtrooms today, a party in court could be financed by foreign interests (and other unrelated third parties) without the other party ever knowing it. This alternate funder may be an investor hoping for uncorrelated returns, a wealthy donor with personal or business interests in the case, or an affiliate of an adversarial nation seeking to undermine U.S. competitiveness. The third-party litigation funding industry operates in the Wild West. Any outside group can pay the bills for a party in a legal dispute. They do this often in exchange for a percentage of an eventual settlement. Absent a handful of states that have passed disclosure laws affecting their own state court systems, the vast majority of state and federal courts do not require parties to disclose who's paying their legal costs—not to other parties and not even to the presiding judge. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. A stone sign for the United States Court House in downtown Los Angeles, Calif. is pictured. Getty Images But disclosure is critical and not just for transparency's sake. Incentives matter in the courtroom. The American civil litigation system is premised on fairness, impartiality, and the pursuit of justice. If a party's funders have hidden motives that stray from the desire to fairly resolve a dispute, trust in the system is put at risk. Foreign sources of litigation funding introduce a whole new set of perverse incentives. A foreign funder may finance a case in order to gain access to sensitive intellectual property or even to evade sanctions that prohibit transactions or investments in U.S. capital markets. Also, since litigation funders have their own monetary and non-monetary goals, the funder may push its client to demand steeper settlement terms than the client would otherwise consider. These are not hypothetical situations. In 2024, Bloomberg Law reported that a group of sanctioned Russian billionaires created an investment fund to back bankruptcy lawsuits in New York and London thus allowing the oligarchs to steer (launder) tens of millions into western financial institutions. In another instance, China-based technology firm PurpleVine financed several intellectual property lawsuits against Samsung. This was discovered by a lone overseeing judge in Delaware who luckily requires litigation financing disclosure in his courtroom. Had the case not crossed his desk, the defendants may never have known that their case was hardly a mere legal challenge but, in actuality, a case with national security importance. Foreign donors may also fund lawsuits that advance their personal agendas. Last year, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings revealed that an Australian mining billionaire was paying the legal bills for a coalition of environmental nonprofits in their lawsuit against ExxonMobil. The billionaire, Andrew Forrest, runs a mining empire that he aims to convert into a clean-energy provider—demonstrating both ideological and anticompetitive reasons to target an American oil major that he would not otherwise have standing to sue. This backdoor litigation is getting foreign companies and even foreign governments into American courtrooms they otherwise wouldn't be able to access. Since the third-party litigation funding industry is entirely unregulated, each of these examples only came to light by accident: strong investigative reporting; a lone judge's standing transparency order; and a buried FARA filing. But in each instance, the discovery of foreign funding changed both public perception and legal strategy. Routine civil suits became vehicles for money laundering, corporate espionage, and personal grievance. Unregulated third-party litigation financing is a crucial vulnerability for American competitiveness and national security. In order to secure a just and fair civil justice system, it's only common sense that parties should know who they're up against. We must act quickly as this "hidden party" industry is growing at a pace stressing the non-existent regulatory regime. One estimate values the global market at $17.5 billion in 2025, and it is forecasted to grow to $67.2 billion by 2037. Naturally, it's also becoming more complex. Opportunistic actors are developing secondary markets—a "stock exchange for lawsuits"—which, if left unregulated as well, will only create new avenues for foreign actors to distort the civil justice system and surreptitiously move capital. Regulators can be certain that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other adversarial nations have taken notice of this influx of cash into the industry. The CCP may be responsible for a significant part of this cash flow, but we cannot be sure. Under the current system, neither national security officials nor legal professionals have any way to discern the source of billions of dollars propping up civil suits from behind the curtain. A number of bills in state legislatures and in Congress have been introduced to require disclosure of any third-party litigation financing—of foreign funding in particular. This is a welcome development. Lawmakers in Washington and in statehouses across the country should move with alacrity and act on this issue before American companies, our justice system, and our capital markets are subjected to further foreign meddling. Former Representative Michael Patrick Flanagan (R-Ill.) previously represented the 5th District of Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives and sat on the Committee on the Judiciary. An attorney, he previously served in the U.S. Army and retired at the rank of captain. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
San Francisco Chronicle
10 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Chinese woman becomes third person charged under Australia's foreign interference laws
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — A Chinese citizen was charged Monday under Australia's recent foreign interference laws with covertly collecting information about an Australian Buddhist association, police said. The woman, an Australian permanent resident based in the capital Canberra, is only the third person charged since the laws were passed in 2018 and the first to be accused of interfering with the general population, Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Stephen Nutt police said. She was charged in a Canberra court with covertly gathering information about a local branch of the Buddhist association Guan Yin Citta on behalf of the Public Security Bureau of China. The association is banned in China. Police have not detailed her alleged objectives. 'We allege the activity was to support intelligence objectives of the China's Public Security Bureau. This is the first time the AFP has charged a person with foreign interference that allegedly involves targeting members of the Australian community,' Nutt told reporters. 'Foreign interference is a serious crime that undermines democracy and social cohesion. It is a crime carried out by or on behalf of a foreign principal that involves covert and deceptive conduct or threats of serious harm or menacing demands,' Nutt added. The woman, who was arrested at her home Saturday, cannot be named publicly due to a court order. She was remanded in custody and faces a maximum 15 years in prison if convicted. She is the first foreign national to be charged under the sweeping laws that created a rift between Australia and China when they were first announced in 2017. Vietnam-born Melbourne businessman and local community leader Di Sanh Duong was sentenced to two years and nine months in prison last year over an attempt to influence a former federal government minister on behalf of China. Sydney businessman Alexander Csergo also was charged with foreign interference for allegedly accepting payments for information from two suspected Chinese spies. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. Mike Burgess, director-general of the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, said the nation's main domestic spy agency had made a signficant contribution to the latest arrest. 'Foreign interference of the kind alleged is an appalling assault on Australian values, freedoms and sovereignty,' Burgess said in a statement.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
Hong Kong cancels passports and bans financial support for 16 overseas activists
HONG KONG (AP) — Hong Kong authorities on Monday strengthened a crackdown on 16 overseas-based activists who were previously targeted by bounties on suspicion of endangering national security, implementing measures that include banning financial support to them and canceling passports for most of them. The activists were among 19 people who were targeted with arrest warrants in July for alleged roles in Hong Kong Parliament, a group the police called a subversive organization abroad. The organization is not the city's official legislature and its influence is limited. Three of the original 19 activists were already targeted by similar measures last year. Secretary for Security Chris Tang banned providing funds or economic resources to the 16 activists, including Victor Ho, Keung Ka-wai, Australian academic Chongyi Feng and U.S. citizen Gong Sasha, the Hong Kong government said in a statement. Travel documents were canceled for 12 of the 16 who hold Hong Kong passports. The government also prohibited properties from being leased to the people on the list or forming joint ventures with them. Anyone violating the orders risks a penalty of up to seven years in prison. The 16 activists are hiding in the U.K., the U.S., Canada, Germany, Australia, Thailand and Taiwan, among other regions, the government said, accusing them of continuing to engage in activities endangering national security. The notice also accused them of intending to incite hatred against Beijing and Hong Kong through smear and slander. 'We therefore have taken such measures to make a significant impact,' the statement said. Beijing imposed a national security law on the territory in 2020 that has effectively wiped out most public dissent following huge anti-government protests in 2019. Many activists were arrested, silenced or forced into self-exile. The measures announced Monday were issued under the powers granted by Hong Kong's homegrown national security law enacted last year. The arrest warrants issued in July have drawn criticism from foreign governments, including the U.S., the U.K. and the European Union. Police offered rewards of 200,000 Hong Kong dollars ($25,480) to 1 million Hong Kong dollars ($127,400) for information leading to their arrests. In a July statement, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the moves. 'The extraterritorial targeting of Hong Kongers who are exercising their fundamental freedoms is a form of transnational repression,' he said. 'We will not tolerate the Hong Kong government's attempts to apply its national security laws to silence or intimidate Americans or anyone on U.S. soil.' The Hong Kong office of the Chinese Foreign Ministry responded by opposing criticism from foreign politicians, insisting the actions were legitimate.
