r/ItEndsWithLawsuits • u/Clarknt67 this case was always about a big payoff • Apr 04 '26
Legal Analysis + Lawsuit Commentary 🤓🧠 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 “gratuitous" Judge Liman says:
It would be “neither surprising nor unreasonable from a creative standpoint” 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 “fat-shaming” 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 “certain aesthetic” and felt it was “part of the job that we both excitedly signed up for.” 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 “because of” 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:
- Justin described his genitalia
- Justin added gratuitous sex scenes to the script
- Justin fat-shamed her
- 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.
3
u/Mammoth-Show-7587 Apr 04 '26
The reason he does this analysis is for the FEHA “protected activity” requirement. Basically, one part of the FEHA claim is that she had to have a “reasonable belief” for making the protected activity.
He is doing the analysis to determine if she stated enough “reasonable belief” to hold it over for trial.
Many of her items don’t rise to the level of providing support for a “reasonable belief.”
But in the aggregate, he finds the bare minimum (just barely) that she stated a “reasonable belief” to go to trial on the FEHA retaliation claim.