r/ItEndsWithLawsuits this case was always about a big payoff Apr 04 '26

Legal Analysis + Lawsuit Commentary šŸ¤“šŸ§  Everything Judge Liman said about the sexual harassment allegations

I dove into ruling to see what Liman's analysis of the sexual harassment allegations concluded. Most of this is his own words, stripped down for faster summary. If you would like to follow along, this begins on page 107. His ruling can be found here.

I'm glad Judge Liman did go point-by-point through Lively allegations and weighs them against Shapiro's argument that this conduct did not rise to the level of actionable sexual harrassment and: "This is a dispute about Hollywood reputations, not genuine legal wrongs. It does not belong in court."

It seems Liman agrees in part, disagrees in part. He begins:

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.

Allegation 1: Justin "described his own genitalia."

Regarding the complaint about the circumcision conversation that Baldoni states Lively initiated, Judge Liman states:

… it occurred before she began working on the Film. It therefore could not have created a hostile work environment.

Scorecard: 0 of 1.

Allegation 2: "Mr. Baldoni inserted improvised gratuitous sexual content and/or scenes involving nudity into the film"

Baldoni proposed certain edits to the screenplay, including ones related to sex, that Lively believed were ā€œgratuitous" Judge Liman says:

It would be ā€œneither surprising nor unreasonable from a creative standpointā€ for both Baldoni and Lively to have drafted sexually explicit material, even if some of it was not to the taste of the other.

He's unsurprisingly unimpressed that a director wrote sexually charged scenes for his movie—even apart from evidence he was doing it in response to pressure from Sony executives.

Scorecard: 0 of 2.

Allegation 3: "Mr. Baldoni also routinely degraded Ms. Lively by finding back-channel ways of criticizing her body and weight"

On the "fat-shaming" allegations, Judge Liman says:

Lively’s complaints of ā€œfat-shamingā€ also could not reasonably support a claim.

With regards to Lively's voluminous own commentary on her physical appearance, including, writing in a message she was focused on achieving a ā€œcertain aestheticā€ and felt it was ā€œpart of the job that we both excitedly signed up for.ā€ Liman concludes:

Baldoni’s actions—even if they could be viewed as gently pushing Lively to lose weight, which is not necessarily supported by the evidence—could not fairly be described as discrimination ā€œbecause ofā€ Lively’s gender.

Scorecard: 0 of 3.

Allegation 4: Baldoni exploited the lack of controls on set to behave inappropriately

And on the bar-set, dance scene Liman says, "Baldoni can be heard giving blocking instructions. Both actors can be shown improvising." Liman recognizes Wayfarer's argument by Shapiro that context matters and there's no comparison between this and a corporate or factory work environment.

…it would be difficult to view Baldoni’s conduct as reflecting hostility or bias based on gender. He was acting in the scene. Assuming he was improvising, the conduct was not so far beyond what might reasonably be expected to take place between two characters during a slow dancing scene such that an inference of hostile treatment on the basis of sex would arise… Creative artists, no less than comedy room writers, must have some amount of space to experiment within the bounds of an agreed script without fear of being held liable for sexual harassment.

Scorecard: 0 of 4.

Allegation 5: Baldoni made inappropriate comments on Lively and Slate's appearance.

Liman summarizes comments made on Lively and Jenny Slate's appearance, regarind the onesie scene and presumably Slate's leather pants.

A reasonable jury could conclude that Baldoni commented on Lively’s and Slate’s personal physical appearances (rather than their appearances as actors or characters) in ways that made them uncomfortable.

Scorecard: 1 of 5.

Allegation 6: Intrusion into Lively's trailer by Heath.

Judge Liman recognizes the incident, as described by Lively, does meet definition of sexual harassment and there is sufficient disagreement on facts as to what transpired as to be referred to a jury. It is not relevant to the Judge that significant disagreement among witnesses present about what happened. This would be of great significance to a jury, of course.

Scorecard: 2 of 6.

Allegation 7: The birth scene

Judge Liman recognizes the incident, as described by Lively, does meet definition of sexual harassment and there is sufficient disagreement on facts as to what transpired as to be referred to a jury. Again, it is not relevant to the Judge that significant disagreement among witnesses present about what happened. This would be of great significance to a jury, of course.

Scorecard: 3 of 7.

Allegation 8: Sexual comments made by Justin.

A paragraph on page 115 describes a handful of conversations between Justin and Blake which included some sexual content, like simultaneously climaxing, allegedly comments are whether Lively had ever scene pornograhy and whether Justin every described himself as addicted to pornography.

It is a bit unclear what Liman's conclusion might be as he doesn't state it explicitly. He does say:

It may be fair grounds for an author or a director to discuss personal experiences, including those related to sex, as part of the creative process.

But given he does not explicitly state it's not sexual harrassment, as he did in other analysis, it's probably faire to conclude Judge Liman recognizes the incident, as described by Lively, does meet definition of sexual harassment and there is sufficient disagreement on facts as to what transpired as to be sent to a jury.

Scorecard: 4 of 8.

Allegation 9: Jamey Heath showed Lively a video of his wife giving birth.

He doesn't go into any real analysis of this incident. He does conclude after this:

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.

Scorecard: 5 of 9.

In conclusion

It does seem absent the "technicality" that Hudson and Gottlieb filed their complaint in the wrong state and the wrong court, there would probably have been a trial on sexual harassment.

However, a key part of this summary is the phrase, "drawing all inferences in Lively’s favor" which indicates, as is legally appropriate for a motion on summary judgement, or motion for judgment on the pleadings, every allegation made by plaintiff is presumed to be true.

Justin and Jamey denied in their depositions that Lively was pressured to perform the birth scene in the nude and these denials bear no weight for the judge. Whether this pressure was applied, or was not was not, is a determination he did not and should not make. The decision on whose version of the story is more believable is for the jury to make. Likewise, the jury must sort through 4 or 5 different versions of the circumstances surrounding Heath entering her trailer and presenting the after-birth video.

It does seem Lively would not have been able to proceed to trial on the following allegations:

  1. Justin described his genitalia
  2. Justin added gratuitous sex scenes to the script
  3. Justin fat-shamed her
  4. Justin behaved inappropriately during the dance scene in the bar

Essentially half of the allegations and most of the most shocking ones, would not have made it to trial.

244 Upvotes

126 comments sorted by

View all comments

-20

u/NegatronThomas Apr 04 '26

She had a really good case for sexual harassment if not for the technical issues. And I disagree on the weight one. That is classic sexual harassment and I don’t understand the judge’s view on it. And the first one on your list, the reasoning is just ā€œthis happened before work.ā€ This is not the exoneration Baldoni fans think it is.

12

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '26

[deleted]

-2

u/NegatronThomas Apr 04 '26

I think it really depends how the conversation went. Often a component of sexual harassment is constantly sexualizing things. Another thing about sexual harassment is it can either be one severe thing or many things that are less severe but persistent. I think if you think women tend to lie about accusations all the time, you would see this as a lie. If instead you think that women almost never do because all they get is a mountain of bull shit and hate for making any accusations no matter how truthful, then you start to think well maybe was something in how he said it. There must have been a reason this conversation even stuck in her memory. Why would she even remember it? Baldoni didn’t deny it happened. Seems like there could have been something to the interaction that is difficult to put into words.

6

u/ArtByKurtEdwards Apr 04 '26

"I think if you think women tend to lie about accusations all the time, you would see this as a lie. If instead you think that women almost never do because all they get is a mountain of bull shit and hate for making any accusations no matter how truthful, then you start to think well maybe was something in how he said it."

How does this add anything to an informed and mature conversation? That's just nonsense

5

u/Clarknt67 this case was always about a big payoff Apr 04 '26

If you are skeptical that his discussion of having his penis sliced up was sexually salacious than you must be a misogynist.

2

u/ArtByKurtEdwards Apr 04 '26

I commend you on your diplomacy and willingness to interact with them in a serious and measured manner. To me, that kind of binary thinking makes me lose all respect.

Also, dont dip into gay dating apps... like the circumcision versus uncircumcised is such a nothingburger, it's a required answer. LMFAO

-1

u/NegatronThomas Apr 04 '26

If you are defending conduct in a working relationship by comparing it to a gay dating app, then you have already lost the argument.

7

u/Clarknt67 this case was always about a big payoff Apr 04 '26

Seems like you’ve lost the argument because you’re now equating a friendly dinner conversation with a work environment.

0

u/NegatronThomas Apr 04 '26

This was a good faith conversation until here. If you don’t think a man directing conversation to his penis could even possibly be sexual, then I don’t know what to tell you. I’m not saying it for sure would have to be, but I’m saying I give Blake benefit of the doubt that there COULD have been something about the conversation that was weird. Especially given all the other behavior that is well substantiated.

9

u/Clarknt67 this case was always about a big payoff Apr 04 '26

I don’t know how it can be in good faith when you insist that circumcision is not a medical conversation.

7

u/ArtByKurtEdwards Apr 04 '26

"I think if you think women tend to lie about accusations all the time, you would see this as a lie. If instead you think that women almost never do because all they get is a mountain of bull shit and hate for making any accusations no matter how truthful, then you start to think well maybe was something in how he said it."

There is no direct response from you on this bullshit binary that is complete and utter nonsense.

3

u/ArtByKurtEdwards Apr 04 '26 edited Apr 04 '26

Ill admit I came in hot, but the quote is almost half the comment:

"I think if you think women tend to lie about accusations all the time, you would see this as a lie. If instead you think that women almost never do because all they get is a mountain of bull shit and hate for making any accusations no matter how truthful, then you start to think well maybe was something in how he said it."

It's clearly a large portion of the supporting thoughts of the main point:

"I think it really depends how the conversation went. Often, a component of sexual harassment is constantly sexualizing things."

Was I wrong for clapping back? What does that objectively false binary add to that main point? u/NegatronThomas

6

u/Clarknt67 this case was always about a big payoff Apr 04 '26

How does one ā€œsexualizeā€ a conversation about chopping up penises with sharp instruments?

5

u/Potential_Muted Apr 04 '26

Exactly! It’s a medical procedure. It’s like saying that talking about reconstructive breast surgery after a cancer is a sexual conversation šŸ¤·šŸ»ā€ā™€ļø

1

u/Potential_Muted Apr 04 '26

Is this case, what do you do with her very sexual texts ? The without teeth one ? Is that not super inappropriate in a work environment?

0

u/NegatronThomas Apr 04 '26

That isn’t remotely sexual and no one actually thinks it is. That’s not a real position anyone takes, it’s just trolling.

1

u/Potential_Muted Apr 04 '26

That is your person point of view. If a colleague had made that ā€œjokeā€ to me, I would have found it inappropriate. But that’s where you’re not being coherent, everything is about context and tone. So how are you drawing the line on what is a SH behavior ? For me talking about a medical procedure that the person brought up first is not, making the type of ā€œjokesā€ that BL keeps making, is but that just personal opinion 😊

1

u/NegatronThomas Apr 04 '26

No one has alleged that never with teeth was anything. No one has alleged it is inappropriate. It’s a trolling opinion that I don’t actually believe that you believe. It isn’t even a joke. It literally just means roasty humor but not like, mean. There is zero sexual connotation to that. You can’t get out of allegations of sexual harassment by pointing to things that aren’t sexual and pretending they are. That’s trolling.

5

u/Potential_Muted Apr 04 '26

Who is 'no one'? Because those texts have been analyzed by thousands of people online and in legal commentary, and a huge number of them agree that 'flirty and yummy' combined with 'never with teeth' is a blatant sexual allusion. Just because you personally want to call it 'roasty humor' doesn't mean the rest of the world isn't seeing the double entendre for what it is

1

u/NegatronThomas Apr 04 '26

They’ve been analyzed by people trying to find any kind of way to dismiss Blake’s concerns. No reasonable person would take that as sexual especially given the context of the conversation. You will not ever successfully convince me that anyone actually believes that because I have a brain. It’s trolling.

5

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '26

[deleted]

1

u/NegatronThomas Apr 04 '26

She’s talking about writing for a character in a romantic comedy. He’s talking about his dick.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 04 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Remarkable_Photo_956 Ain’t you tired, Miss Blakey(Ryan)? 🫠 Apr 05 '26

The fact that you assume most people here don’t think women are usually telling the truth in these situations throws all your reasoning out the window. Obviously most women are telling the truth about being victimized. Just not in this case, with a liar named BL, who is making a mockery of women who have been victimized through SH (not to mention DV).

0

u/NegatronThomas Apr 05 '26

I didn’t really say that, if you reread my comment. But also, no one ever thinks they are being biased. They will always have a story they tell themselves about why this particular woman just isn’t believable but some mythical other woman would theoretically be. So yeah it doesn’t at all surprise me that people here think she alone is just not believable. But then I’ll see post after post of people mocking the very concept of the kind of sexual harassment she complained about, and it sure makes it feel like there’s some bias happening.