Judge dismisses much of Blake Lively's lawsuit against Justin Baldoni

Ya it was after the on set drama. If I remember correctly he was worried because she was doing the PR run with the cast (it seemed like back then they were on her side I have no clue if that has remained true) & he was sort of cut off so he started it to weaken her position if she decided to come after him more then it just exploded into way more mess.

Sony had a contract with Baldoni that set specific metrics that his edit had to meet to be used. He failed. And since most movies do not use a Director's Cut, Sony had every intention of having another person do the edit/cut. Lively presented herself as an option, she then took Sony's recommended changes, along with input from the book's author & others to make her edit. Sony like hers enough to release it instead of having another person do an edit.

That's what I've been trying to find out. Beyond news reports of the initial complaint and the following lawsuits, there's been virtually nothing in the media, certainly not from impartial reporting, that gives any indication as to the status of the CRD complaint process (as described on the CRD website) as it relates to Blake Luvely's complaint.

The stories had teeth though. These were all things Blake Lively did, someone just drew a lot of attention to them. She’s a crappy person. I used to love her before I knew how horrible she could be to people. Same with Reynolds but they orchestrated their own smear campaign and it just didn’t run very far because there was so much more dirt for the internet to play with on Lively. She had it coming.

It wasn't Stephanie Jones, it was her ex-employee Jennifer Abel & Melissa Nathan with her notorious team at TAG & JedW. of Street. The texts between them all are damnong.

Is it illegal?

On the contrary, the judge went over all her claims in detail in his 152 page ruling. He went into each claim of SH in detail and specifically said even without the employment issue, they FAILED under the law. Circumcision discussion-nope; Acting & improvisation in character -nope; Adding more sex scenes or nudity- nope; Weight shaming -nope; Jamey Heath text saying he was home with family/ nope; Wording being “birthed into the role” - nope; The birth video-questionable but not as a stand alone-nope; Barging into her trailer-questionable, but another standalone as it wasn’t repeated, Etc. The judge expressly said all her claims FAILED two of the three requirements that constitute SH, **even without the employment issue**. The whole thing, including the legal reasoning for each one is posted publicly on the docket. The only criteria in the 3point nexus to be considered legal SH that passed muster was that Blake could have thought she was being harassed. Not being able to read her mind, he gave her that one.

Given the nature of the work, sexual comments are not inappropriate or harassment unless the person saying them doesn't believe they are constructive to the work. That is where it gets confusing. Like obviously in an office talking about a coworkers cleavage would be wrong, but talking about the cleavage of an outfit in the making of a movie would be entirely typical.

There are other laws to utilize when you’re a contractor. Independent contractors are not unprotected. Just not under this particular federal law. Therefore, FEDERAL COURT is not the venue for that, state court is. These aren’t technicalities. What cause of action to bring in what court is LAW 101! Ask yourself why her prestigious high-dollar law firm did this? They undoubtedly knew all this. This is literally no chance in hell they didn’t. I think they thought they’d win the PR war, and Justin would cave before this ever got to the courthouse door. They all look like fools.

Judge's ruling dismissing 10 or 13 claims:  [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1273/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1273/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/) **Ruling on dismissal of sexual harassment cause: page 93** The Court therefore grants judgment on Counts Three and Thirteen of the SAC because those claims lack a sufficient nexus to California. That means that both Lively’s federal and state claims alleging sexual harassment fail to survive the Wayfarer Parties’ motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleading **Page 94:**   The Court has granted judgment on the Title VII and Section 1102.5 claims on the grounds that Lively was an independent contractor **Retaliation: Page 95** The Court thus turns to Lively’s retaliation claims under FEHA. In doing so, the Court finds that there exist genuine issues of material fact requiring trial as to the claims against IEWUM and Wayfarer. **Page 96-97**  A plaintiff must establish that (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) the defendant subjected her to an adverse employment action; and (3) a 97 causal link exists between the protected activity and the defendant’s action **Page 103** Here, the Court finds triable issues of fact with respect to all three elements of Lively’s FEHA retaliation claim. **Page 106** a. Good-Faith Basis A reasonable jury could conclude that Lively opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment by complaining about inappropriate behavior in the Protections Letter and during the all-hands meeting. The Wayfarer Parties have not specifically contested Lively’s subjective belief that she was discriminated against. And there is sufficient evidence suggesting that she felt she had been. **Page 106-107** To be sure, the Wayfarer Parties have suggested that Lively used her experience on set as a cudgel for control over the Film. See, e.g., Gottlieb Decl., Ex. 170 (Heath stating that “\[s\]he continues to hold a threat over our heads and every time we try and hold a line she uses that threat either directly or indirectly to get us to fold”); Shapiro Decl., Ex. 121 (Baldoni stating that the Protections were “sent in an effort to gain power over \[him\] personally and the studio”). **But a reasonable jury could find that Lively also genuinely experienced what happened on set as discriminatory.** The two are not mutually exclusive. There is at least a triable issue with respect to whether Lively sincerely experienced what happened on set as sexually harassing. **Page 107** b. Objective Basis Viewed in the light most favorable to Lively, there is also sufficient evidence that it was reasonable for her to believe that the Wayfarer Parties sexually harassed her by creating a hostile work environment. In analyzing this issue, the Court need not, and does not, determine whether the relevant conduct rose to the level of sexual harassment. There is enough evidence in the record to conclude that it was far from baseless. **Page 108-109** Lively has identified a series of acts that she claims created a hostile work environment based on her gender, beginning with her work on the Film and continuing through the conclusion of the first phase of filming. Several of the incidents either would not support a hostile work environment claim or would do so, at most, only minimally or in context. **Other incidents come closer to stating a claim.** The Court begins with the former before turning to the latter. When viewed together, the incidents are sufficient to support a reasonable basis for Lively’s complaints (and therefore her assertion of a retaliation claim) **Page 106-116** But it suffices for present purposes to conclude that, drawing all inferences in Lively’s favor, a person in her position could have understood the workplace to at times reflect a gendered and sexualized view of women and a disregard for their privacy sufficient to make it reasonable to complain about a hostile work environment based on sex or gender. That conclusion finds additional support in the fact that Lively alluded to many of these incidents in the Protections Letter, and the Wayfarer Parties wrote that “\[a\]lthough \[their\] perspective differ\[ed\] in many aspects,” they found most of her requests “not only reasonable but also essential for the benefit of all parties involved. **Page 116 -117** The Court need not consider whether the acts as alleged would support a jury verdict that the Wayfarer Parties created a hostile work environment under FEHA. It is sufficient that it was reasonable for Lively to believe that they did. The Wayfarer Parties accordingly knew that at least some of Lively’s complaints went to instances of alleged gender discrimination rather than “merely unfair personnel treatment

Judge's ruling dismissing 10 or 13 claims:  [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1273/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/1273/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/) **Ruling on dismissal of sexual harassment cause: page 93** The Court therefore grants judgment on Counts Three and Thirteen of the SAC because those claims lack a sufficient nexus to California. That means that both Lively’s federal and state claims alleging sexual harassment fail to survive the Wayfarer Parties’ motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleading **Page 94:**   The Court has granted judgment on the Title VII and Section 1102.5 claims on the grounds that Lively was an independent contractor **Retaliation: Page 95** The Court thus turns to Lively’s retaliation claims under FEHA. In doing so, the Court finds that there exist genuine issues of material fact requiring trial as to the claims against IEWUM and Wayfarer. **Page 96-97**  A plaintiff must establish that (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) the defendant subjected her to an adverse employment action; and (3) a 97 causal link exists between the protected activity and the defendant’s action **Page 103** Here, the Court finds triable issues of fact with respect to all three elements of Lively’s FEHA retaliation claim. **Page 106** a. Good-Faith Basis A reasonable jury could conclude that Lively opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment by complaining about inappropriate behavior in the Protections Letter and during the all-hands meeting. The Wayfarer Parties have not specifically contested Lively’s subjective belief that she was discriminated against. And there is sufficient evidence suggesting that she felt she had been. **Page 106-107** To be sure, the Wayfarer Parties have suggested that Lively used her experience on set as a cudgel for control over the Film. See, e.g., Gottlieb Decl., Ex. 170 (Heath stating that “\[s\]he continues to hold a threat over our heads and every time we try and hold a line she uses that threat either directly or indirectly to get us to fold”); Shapiro Decl., Ex. 121 (Baldoni stating that the Protections were “sent in an effort to gain power over \[him\] personally and the studio”). **But a reasonable jury could find that Lively also genuinely experienced what happened on set as discriminatory.** The two are not mutually exclusive. There is at least a triable issue with respect to whether Lively sincerely experienced what happened on set as sexually harassing. **Page 107** b. Objective Basis Viewed in the light most favorable to Lively, there is also sufficient evidence that it was reasonable for her to believe that the Wayfarer Parties sexually harassed her by creating a hostile work environment. In analyzing this issue, the Court need not, and does not, determine whether the relevant conduct rose to the level of sexual harassment. There is enough evidence in the record to conclude that it was far from baseless. **Page 108-109** Lively has identified a series of acts that she claims created a hostile work environment based on her gender, beginning with her work on the Film and continuing through the conclusion of the first phase of filming. Several of the incidents either would not support a hostile work environment claim or would do so, at most, only minimally or in context. **Other incidents come closer to stating a claim.** The Court begins with the former before turning to the latter. When viewed together, the incidents are sufficient to support a reasonable basis for Lively’s complaints (and therefore her assertion of a retaliation claim) **Page 106-116** But it suffices for present purposes to conclude that, drawing all inferences in Lively’s favor, a person in her position could have understood the workplace to at times reflect a gendered and sexualized view of women and a disregard for their privacy sufficient to make it reasonable to complain about a hostile work environment based on sex or gender. That conclusion finds additional support in the fact that Lively alluded to many of these incidents in the Protections Letter, and the Wayfarer Parties wrote that “\[a\]lthough \[their\] perspective differ\[ed\] in many aspects,” they found most of her requests “not only reasonable but also essential for the benefit of all parties involved. **Page 116 -117** The Court need not consider whether the acts as alleged would support a jury verdict that the Wayfarer Parties created a hostile work environment under FEHA. It is sufficient that it was reasonable for Lively to believe that they did. The Wayfarer Parties accordingly knew that at least some of Lively’s complaints went to instances of alleged gender discrimination rather than “merely unfair personnel treatment

In the judgement, the judge says it is not unreasonable behavior for a romantic film. Multiple instances it says things along the lines of “she may have subjectively thought…” but not harassment —to a reasonable standard—took place

Well there might be legal standing to the case (and in this case, it doesn't look like an anti-slap was done, so maybe first ammendent hasn't been explored or genuinly isnt relevant or antislap isnt in this state idk) a judge doesnt dismiss / accept a case on wherever they think the defense will lose. Thats more my question, I'm not familiar if the 1st would be a pretty strong defence here presuming no libel.

They were dismissed for issues regarding standing, NOT merit.

The concept you're describing is what's referred to as a convincing mosaic. A list of facts (tiles), where each fact is not convincing on its own but when laid out as part of a broader pattern, appears to be something more.

[removed]

Thanks for the additional context. The quotes in the article give the impression that the judge said that because she was a contractor that the sexual harassment didn’t count, but if there were 20 pages of analysis than that claim doesn’t hold water. What a messy case.

It's because Ryan Reynolds is the only thing they got going for them. Otherwise, it would have been just another shitty phone company.

actually, since ryan used to own shares in mint-- and after tmobile bought it, they kept him on as a creative--, its possible that they use his marketing company-- maximum effort. reynolds does a lot of cronyism when he's involved... and u can usually tell. deadpool 2, deadpool & wolverine, free guy, welcome to wrexham, mint mobile, aviation gin, match.com, that gwen paltrow check-in video for astronomer (the corpo where the ceo is at the coldplay concert w that woman and he literally folds over and crouches out of sight bc he's a high profile ceo cheating on his wife or whateve) after the coldplay thing went viral. all his shit is exactly the same. he is the brand. he makes sure the brand is inserted into ____ when possible.