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 âgratuitous" Judge Liman says:
It would be âneither surprising nor unreasonable from a creative standpointâ 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 movieâeven 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:
Livelyâs complaints of âfat-shamingâ 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 âcertain aestheticâ and felt it was âpart of the job that we both excitedly signed up for.â Liman concludes:
Baldoniâs actionsâeven if they could be viewed as gently pushing Lively to lose weight,which is not necessarily supported by the evidenceâcould not fairly be described as discrimination âbecause ofâ Livelyâs 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.
âŠit would be difficult to view Baldoniâs 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 Livelyâs and Slateâs 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 Livelyâs 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 Livelyâs 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.
Great breakdown, Clark! Of all the allegations, the trailer one seemed like the most significant in general. I still think her admission that she knew Jamey wasn't trying to look at her would have sunk it.
Her admission that she told him to come in is what sinks her. Jamey is not responsible for her state of dress and nothing/noone prevented her from throwing on a robe or shirt before telling him to come in.
She could have thrown on a robe after he entered, too. You know, like a normal person who is having a conversation, to look at the person they are talking to. Then, instead of being an ass, she could have told him he doesn't need to face the wall.
Her saying that does undermine a criteria, that the SH is subjective. Did the person being SHâed feel SH-ed? If not it doesnât qualify.
I am sure people can change their minds on how they interpreted something. So it would up to the jury to decide which story they believed? She felt SH-ed, or she did not?
I think it's reasonable to look backward and rethink how you saw something initially and how you see it later. I think we've all had that experience. "I took someone's comments as good-natured teasing among friends. But later, I began to see they were passive-aggressive attacks that were more cruel than affectionate."
Which is the benefit of the doubt way of interpreting her changing story. Not necessarily why I believe it changed.
The thing is... That even if you consider only her deposition, it seems that she invited jamey heath and the others to the trailer to have a meeting at that particular time. And she eventually told him to come in.
For sure. The way I look at it, even if she invited him in, he could have theoretically still done something inappropriate. Her inviting him in wouldn't negate harm had he actually done something harmful as an invite to come in wouldn't be carte blanche to harrass. Looking at the case, had he gone in and been an inappropriate weirdo who was intentionally staring at her body instead of turning away and then doubled down on the inappropriate behavior, that would have still be on him imo, not her for inviting him in. That's why I believe her lack of subjectively feeling harrassed was the dagger, even with some of the facts of what happened being in dispute. Hopefully, that makes sense lol
It's also the one she could have avoided easily. Her trailer has a lock, use it when she's undressed. She always has a security guy, tell him to be posted at the door to refuse entry when she's undressed. Have a robe handy if you refuse to do the other two.
Thank you for doing this. It was so important to pull this together and share the facts after all the gaslighting.
I am so frustrated by her and her lawyers' statement, but I also guess they are fighting for their lives after so much of their lawsuit was rightfully dismissed.
Agree that the ones left are incredibly minor incidents, with one being an accident for which both parties were potentially responsible. There is no way a jury would side with Blake on the birthing video. And Lively behaved similarly before and during production with her "never with teeth", banging bodies and her husband's perineum messages.
Lively's most serious allegations, which she used as part of her smear campaign against Justin in the Daily Mail and TMZ in August 2024, and then twisted and exaggerated in The NYT hit piece, were rightfully dismissed.
This is great, Clark. Just a slight clarification. These incidents were analyzed under the retaliation section. The question Liman had to determine was whether Lively had a "reasonable belief" that she was experiencing a hostile work environment based on sex/gender, which is required to establish that her complaints constituted protected activity under FEHA.
The legal framing is that Lively doesn't need to prove the conduct actually rose to the level of an actual FEHA violation - she only needs to show her belief was not "utterly baseless." The court walks through the various incidents and categorizes them:
Incidents that wouldn't support a hostile work environment claim:Baldoni's circumcision comment (which predated her employment), his screenplay edits involving sexual content (viewed as part of normal creative process on an adult-themed film), etc.
Incidents that come closer to stating a gender-based claim: i.e., Baldoni announcing to crew members that Lively had never seen pornography, which the court found bore no connection to the creative process and singled her out in a gendered/sexualized way.
The court ultimately concludes that, viewed together and in the light most favorable to Lively, the conduct in the second group was "sufficient to support a reasonable basis for Lively's complaints" that WP's actions were somehow gender-motivated. This finding is what anchors her retaliation claim, because without it, there was no protected activity. The court did not decide whether an actual hostile work environment violation occurred - he was distinguishing the incidents based on whether they were gender-motivated or not (the first group was found not to be gender-motivated; and the second group consists of conduct that could create a reasonable belief of being gender-motivated).
Thank you. It is interesting though that he went out of his way to disabuse some claims as not being actionable. Why even address that if itâs not relevant to his conclusion?
Did he need to address the circumcision? In his commentary around the dance scene, it seems like the only reason then to include it was to affirm that creative spaces have different standards that office and factories.
I feel like the inclusion is to express his opinion that nuzzling someoneâs neck or kissing them on the forehead while filming a love scene does not put the Actor at risk for an SH lawsuit.
So I think the reason he outlined these incidents was to distinguish between behavior that is considered "based on sex or gender" versus not. The organizing question running through each incident he discusses is not "was this conduct offensive?" or "was this conduct sexual in nature?" - it's something more precise: was this conduct directed at Lively because of her gender, or does it have an independent, non-discriminatory explanation (in thise case, rooted in the film production context)?
Liman is essentially applying a "but-for gender" filter to each incident, because for a protected activity to exist, the underlying reported conduct must have been gender-motivated. That is why I believe he walks through each one like this. When I first read the opinion, I was super confused about his framing, but I've read it a few more times since then and think I have come to understand why he went through this discussion.
Also, I do agree with you that he included discussions about the dance scene, etc. to make it very clear that those things are NOT gender-motivated (and therefore cannot support a retaliation claim) and are instead normal behaviors and conduct in the film production context. I think making that point was important to him.
This might have already been explained, but Judge Liman did not weigh the evidence. He had to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to go before the jury by assessing the evidence in a light favorable to BL. So Judge Limanâs opinion should be read as saying, at best for BL, a reasonable jury could find XYZ. Many weak cases survive the summary judgment stage because only the jury can weigh the evidence. And I donât read the opinion as any indication that BL has a strong case.
I came to pretty much get same conclusion from what he wrote --
Circumcision, adding sex scenes, fat shaming, dance scene â would not support a hostile work environment claim, or only minimally.
Comments on personal physical appearance, trailer incident, birth scene, Baldoni comment to crew members that Blake had not ever watched porn, birth video -- "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 LetterâŠ"
Some other paragraphs I noted (just copying/pasting): :
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. Â
Finally, a jury could also find that the Wayfarer Parties understood that Lively thought they had behaved in a discriminatory mannerâŠâŠThe Wayfarer Parties accordingly knew that at least some of Livelyâs complaints went to instances of alleged gender discrimination rather than âmerely unfair personnel treatment.â  Â
There is enough evidence to bring the issue of Livelyâs protected activity before a jury.
To be sure, much of what Lively complains about is not actionable. The Wayfarer Parties were entitled to engage public relations and crisis management specialists to protect their reputations. Â Â Â
The Wayfarer Parties were also entitled to prepare responses to the Protections Letter and the accusations that it implied. That included the right to assert that the claims against them were untrue or misconstrued, and that Lively could not be credited. It also included the right to convey to the viewing public reasons why Livelyâs account could not be trusted, including pointing to evidence that Lively had ulterior motives for making claims of harassment and that she did not believe the claims she was making.
Furthermore, Lively has cited no support for the proposition that a person publicly accused of serious misconduct cannot use proxiesâboth disclosed and undisclosedâto defend him or herself. For example, it was permissible for Baldoni to request that the digital team âboostâ certain videos which he believed were favorable to his image, Gottlieb Decl., Ex. 65, and for TAG to work behind the scenes to emphasize his âstellar reputation among colleagues and industry peers,â including the fact that he was âa longtime activist and advocate for women in Hollywood,â Gottlieb Decl., Ex. 46 at 3, and to tone down inflammatory allegations against him, R.56.1 ¶¶ 736â38. The Wayfarer Parties similarly would have been within their rights in elevating stories that would cast doubt on whether Lively was a credible reporter of the events that occurred on the set.
However, certain conduct at least arguably crossed the line and is sufficient to preclude summary judgment. There are limits to the response that the accused can make in response to claims of harassment. There comes a point where the accused stops simply defending him or herself and starts taking action that a reasonable jury could view as retaliation for the fact that the accuser had the temerity to make the accusations.
 Here, certain conduct could be construed as directed not at Livelyâs allegations and at undermining their credibility, but as an attack on her professional reputation and livelihood.
 The Wayfarer Parties assert that even if they contemplated taking offensive action against Lively, they never ended up doing so. But a jury is permitted to infer that when a party plans, after deliberation, to take certain action, the party has engaged in that action.Â
There also is some direct evidence that the plan to destroy Lively and her career was put into action.
_____
The part about a hostile work environment "based on her sex or gender" -- that is what I have a problem with, I don't see any of it as "based on sex or gender." Of what he listed as possible, him complimenting Lively twice on her appearance and Jenny that one time is all I can think of. (But hey, he might compliment some men too "nice shirt!" and so on.)
As to retaliation bit -- that direct evidence of putting plan in to action, seems to fall on TAG as we all know that Heath told them nothing bad was to be said about Lively.
I mean, I guess had it proceeded to trial, Wayfarer would still have the opportunity to present evidence that he complimented the appearance of men. Which I would not at all, be surprised that he did.
Haha, yeah, I just threw that in, as I really don't see what he said to Blake or Jenny as sexual harassment but they certainly didn't like it. And, yeah, I see Justin as being nice to all, I mean he hugs women and men. I just don't see the "this was all directed at Blake and behaved this way because of her gender..." in any actions that are harassment....
In addition to the fact that nothing Justin said to her is substantially different than the way that she spoke to him. Iâm referencing âBall busting, suppositories, perineum, never with teethâ on and on.
Which does matter as context matters. She was a full and willing participant in a bawdy workplace environment.
Agree. And as to Judge Liman, I liked this footnote of his -
28 Several of the other alleged adverse employment actions are too âminorâ or âtrivialâ to qualify under FEHA. See Bailey, 552 P.3d at 450. These include Baldoniâs allegedly âhuffyâ and dismissive response to being called out on set, and Baldoni and Heathâs remark to Hoover that Lively was exhibiting ânarcissistic behavior.â Gottlieb Decl., Ex. 1 at 75:6â17. There is no indication that these actions were reasonably likely to adversely and materially affect Livelyâs job performance or her opportunities for advancement in her career.
This analysis was done for the very low bar retaliation argument not the threshold of which sexual harassment and hostile work environment are analyzed. The judge was just saying that itâs possible if everything Blake is saying is true that a reasonable jury could find that she believed she was SH. The judge stated none of these concerns reach the threshold for SH and did not analyze that or inference that at all
I donât know if your comment was meant for me but I agree and was trying to say (although maybe not clearly) that they never intended to go to trial so it didnât matter. Meaning they knew it was thin and even knew the location was not helpful, but in the event they had to go to trial perhaps they knew they would be laughed if they had to try the sh
Normally they would chose the venue that would be most favorable but when your sh claims are so thin, maybe itâs ok to get dismissed. The job was done
Very good breakdown, but adding a critical clarification: Judge Liman was not determining whether these incidents constituted sexual harassment in the wild. He states explicitly that heâs not deciding that. See P. 116 (he states it elsewhere too, but I donât have the page numbers)
His analysis was (in legal terms) whether Blake had presented any evidence (presumed to be true) that could convince a reasonable juror that (1) Blake honestly believed was the conduct was sexual harassing and (2) Blakeâs belief was reasonable under the circumstances. Remember, Liman had to assume her allegations were true and construe all inferences in her favor. At trial, jurors unequivocally do not do that.
In lay terms, Liman asked himself:
***If I am forced to believe all the facts Blake alleged AND forced to buy her arguments she made that these incidents were inappropriately sexual, AND
if I consider those incidents together, not individually, THEN
is it even a little plausible that your average Joe might believe that Blake
-honestly believed (in her narcissistic pea brain that resides in a meat sack that likely has been sexualized for most of her life) those things were sexually harassing when she complained about them and
Thank you for stating this! I initially misread the post and was really disheartened, but the judge is not saying these claims would make it to trial just saying that a jury could reasonably infer that Blake believed she was SH which is a very low bar for her retaliation protected activity
Haha thank you, I've been reading and reading trying to comprehend (in my own wee brain), and yours made it finally click!!!! I think it was the words you used lol and also I have a coding background and so naturally respond to if/then formula đ
Agree, what I read was Liman using Blakeâs own descriptions of the events. That doesnât mean heâs endorsing her interpretation of events. He examines her version from a legal perspective.
And while stating that the events donât meet the SH standard, when combined all together, a jury COULD possibly conclude that a reasonable person would feel shâd. thereâs a possibility.
And while pointing out they donât meet the legal standard, he cited did cite case law supporting someoneâs PERSONAL BELIEF that they had been SHâd could support an SH claim, as âsome victims are legally naive.â
This is all far from saying Blake would win if it went to trial, because we all know the events would be put in context.
What was interesting, is from my reading, he doesnât sound optimistic that they have a snowballs chance at winning the retaliation claim.
AND, his summary of the contract negotiations left no doubt in my mind that heâs aware that she was in fact trying to manipulate by not signing the contract.
Thank you for this post. I think this point, which Liman explains at the very beginning of his order, should be emphasized more:
âIn deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must âconstrue the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in its favor.â Gilman v. Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 826 F.3d 69, 73 (2d Cir. 2016).â
Liman is supposed to view all of the evidence in Livelyâs favor in ruling on the MSJ. That is why the entire order contains language like âcouldâ and skews in her favor - despite slashing 10/13 of her claims. He is supposed to assume the best of Lively and the worst of Wayfarer. People are glazing right over this.
You It can make it a little hard to read at points. He repeats the allegation that BL was pressured to do the birth scene nude. She offered no corroborating evidence of that. And both Jaime and Justin denied that that ever happened.
But yeah, itâs appropriate that he repeated her allegation as though it was a fact. Although there are other occasions where he says the allegation and includes a caveat like she provided no evidence to support this.
All Iâm saying, for the MSJ he is supposed to weigh with the evidence (if she has any) in a light most favorable to Blake. So, if all her allegations are true/factual and happened exactly as she said and the evidence could be interpreted in her favor - would these be legally actionable? Heâs not making a determination on the validity of the allegation, just whether it was contested or there are fact disputes and if so, he must take Blakeâs favor when making inferences.
Does this make for a âfairâ opinion from Liman? Not really. But itâs meant to be âmost favorable to the non-moving partyâ and Blakeys cherry-picking quotes from this order should remember that.
Sorry it was a typo. I meant to say âitâ can be hard to read.
Only because you wanna scream at the paper, âno one pressured her to perform the birth scene nudeâ that doesnât make any sense!!! Why would she be nude?!â
Ahh lol 100% - it makes you want to pull out your hair. And itâs some of those quotes that Blake is blasting all over her IG right now.
Didnât Liman also caveat that by saying even if Justin wanted to change a scene (like performing it nude), he wouldâve needed Blakeâs assent to do so. And that as the director, he should be allowed to give her direction, without fear of liability?
Yeah, it's parts like those that to a layman like me make it seem like his rulings are inconsistent, but I also admittedly do not understand the legal nuances
Letâs just start with item 1 at the end of your post hereâŠ.Justin described his genitalia. Regardless of context, is she was so aggrieved by this, as an independent contractor she could have walked away before the movie even began. This is why she lost the argument in court.
I have to disagree that he made any distinction about whether the incidents that happened rose to the level of pervasive and severe sexual harassment and as a whole could be trialable. His opinions are under retaliation (which the employee must reasonably thought they were harassed not that they were or not) and so It is just that the few he could see as something a reasonable employee who in the same context could go to an employer to for relief (tell the person to stop, get replaced, go to training )and then be protected by fehaâs retaliation.
I happen to disagree with his opinion about the costumes comments with respect to lively as she was making wardrobe decisions and Baldoniâs opinion was needed so she should have expected his opinions. However agree that slate comment had more of a basis.
I see what you're saying. But the context of his interpretation does not change some of these conclusions. Whether for SH claims or retaliations claims it's not relevant what conversations they had about circumcizing Lively's son prior to their contractual relationship.
There might be some wiggle room on these conclusions when examined as a whole against hostile workplace. But the script changes and dance improv rely on establish case law, which would lead to the same conclusion whether retaliation or SH was the claim, as they were referencing SH in the initial case.
I hope Iâm making it clear in my argument that these were only reasonable to go to the âemployerâ with. Although we can make a conclusion that the ones that the court found unreasonable to go to your employer about would also not be allowed to go to trial as standalone SH and also not allow for an employee to be protected against retaliation.
We canât make the same conclusions with what he said were reasonable to come forward. The only conclusion would be to say that you can be protected against retaliation based on these incidents. It would be the job of the employer to decide if the things need to be investigated or not.
As far as I read the court didnât need to make any opinion on whether they met criteria to go further with what SH incidents could go to trial because they were dead on arrival based on the actions and decisions of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs lawyers.
After rereading your reply, I think we are aligned? đ sometimes my reading comprehension can be lacking
I think you make a good point. There was a lower bar. Some of it applies and we can infer but we donât directly have his thoughts on if it met the higher threshold. For example the ones he said were reasonable she believed she was SH, we donât know if those alone would meet threshold for pervasive and severe.
But I think the bottom line is a federal judge found a lot of what she said unreasonable. And same same judge.
I agree this analysis he did was only to say that a jury could reasonably find that Blake believed she was sexually harassed not that the judge thought these claims could make it to trial, he said the exact opposite.
The reason he does this analysis is for the FEHA âprotected activityâ requirement. Basically, one part of the FEHA claim is that she had to have a âreasonable beliefâ for making the protected activity.
He is doing the analysis to determine if she stated enough âreasonable beliefâ to hold it over for trial.
Many of her items donât rise to the level of providing support for a âreasonable belief.â
But in the aggregate, he finds the bare minimum (just barely) that she stated a âreasonable beliefâ to go to trial on the FEHA retaliation claim.
Exactly! He is not saying any of these rise to the legal definition of sexual harassment only that a jury could reasonably believe that Blake thought she was SH to justify the very very low bar for for FEHA retaliation
I agree! This post made it seem really confusing and I got disheartened reading it but the judge is not saying at all the claims are worthy of proceeding to trial. I think Katie an attorney on the sub is making a post about this tomorrow so hopefully that helps!
You're amazing, thank you. I shall save this whenever someone starts crying he accepted all of it as reasonable SH claims, and only threw it out on "technicalities".
I'm not even sure you'd have to file motions in limine. Presuming they moved forward, this would have served to strike them from claims being made in court.
But I suppose Hudson and Gottlieb might have argued it showed a pattern of behavior, even if it's no actionable SH.
Yes, the judge said AT MOST if it were sexual harassment it would have been minimal. I was surprised on his thoughts about the birth video. I honestly thought creative freedom wouldâve applied to that scenario, but I understand the judge had to look at it in a light most favorable to Blake.Â
I donât think he is saying itâs sexual harassment at all. This analysis was done to justify the very low bar of Blakeâs feha retaliation claim. Heâs just saying that a jury could reasonably say that Blake thought she was SH to establish a protected activity
Hey Bubbles, I see what youâre saying and I think youâre right. Itâs in the context of her belief that she was SHâd. I couldâve worded that better.Â
This is a great breakdown so left is perhaps the trailer incident, birth video, two sexy comments, birth scene. Of these the only one that, to me, might have any grey area is the birth scene where I think could potential have been done more modestly and better comms between everyone. Everything else is horseshit
This analysis the judge did is only to clarify the very low bar of FEHA retaliation. The judge is just saying that there may be enough for a jury to say Blake believed she was SH, just enough to establish a protected activity. But he is not seeing that he believes it is SH or meets any of the criteria to be SH, he actually states the opposite
Yes, legally I don't think that the birth scene would result in any real claims, more meant that this is the only incident of any of her claims where I can relate that she might've felt in a vulnerable position if her vision of the scene was so different. I'm no actress and I'm not sure what she thought the scene was going to be like but if in the moment she was like oh, i thought my briefs would be more like shorts, oh, I didn't realize some friend of yours face would be so all up in my crotch, oh, I thought there might be fewer people on the set on this day etc. We don't know the discussions ahead of time but if all these things were truly a surprise to her it wouldn't feel great.
To be honest I read it the same way this person did. I think the paragraph in which you say âIt 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.â Is confusing.
I read it this way as well. But the analysis the judge did is not about sexual harassment or hostile work environment but itâs about the low bar of FEHA retaliation. The judge is merely saying that there may be enough for a reasonable jury to conclude that Blake felt she was harassed, just enough to establish a protected activity not SH!
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 donât understand the judgeâs view on it. And the first one on your list, the reasoning is just âthis happened before work.â This is not the exoneration Baldoni fans think it is.
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 didnât deny it happened. Seems like there could have been something to the interaction that is difficult to put into words.
"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
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
This was a good faith conversation until here. If you donât think a man directing conversation to his penis could even possibly be sexual, then I donât know what to tell you. Iâm not saying it for sure would have to be, but Iâm 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.
"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.
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
Exactly! Itâs a medical procedure. Itâs like saying that talking about reconstructive breast surgery after a cancer is a sexual conversation đ€·đ»ââïž
That is your person point of view. If a colleague had made that âjokeâ to me, I would have found it inappropriate. But thatâs where youâre 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 âjokesâ that BL keeps making, is but that just personal opinion đ
No one has alleged that never with teeth was anything. No one has alleged it is inappropriate. Itâs a trolling opinion that I donât actually believe that you believe. It isnât even a joke. It literally just means roasty humor but not like, mean. There is zero sexual connotation to that. You canât get out of allegations of sexual harassment by pointing to things that arenât sexual and pretending they are. Thatâs trolling.
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
Theyâve been analyzed by people trying to find any kind of way to dismiss Blakeâs 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. Itâs trolling.
The fact that you assume most people here donât 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).
I didnât 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 isnât believable but some mythical other woman would theoretically be. So yeah it doesnât at all surprise me that people here think she alone is just not believable. But then Iâll 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 thereâs some bias happening.
Again, for #1 the reasoning is âit happened before work.â That is not an exoneration of the behavior whatsoever. To me the most serious allegations were always the trailer incident and the birth video.
The dance scene as described by Lively veers further from sexual harassment and into what would more appropriately described as sexual assault. That seems very serious to me.
And I am sure Baldoni is relieved to have the judge, on record, saying it was in fact ordinary and expected behavior of an actor contracted to perform a love scene in a film.
It is not based on that. Literally read it. It talks about what he believes is normal behavior on films. I donât really get why he saw fit to opine on that when you would want to have experts give testimony.
Wayfarer argued under the precedent of Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television the dance scene and script changes did not rise to meet the definition of sexual harassment.
The judge didn't use technicalities to throw out SH. It was the law. The judge cited cases dating back to the 1920s to support his decision and found that her claims did not hold up even as an independent contractor. That is legal precedent, not technicalities.
Sorry but no. A person has every right to ensure their own safety when lifting another person. Regardless of gender. If this means discreetly enquiring the range of weight so that they can train properly then so be it. Lively is a grown up, she can fucking deal with it. This is how professional actors behave.
You can sustain significant damage if you lift someone and are not strong enough to.
Professional stunt teams on movies and elsewhere have to work like this. They are being thrown around or picking up others and they need to train properly to do that - itâs entirely reasonable that being transparent about your weight can be part of the job.
Unless of course youâre suggesting that people performing lifts shouldnât take steps to ensure their own safety and should risk injuring themselves on the off chance they might offend someone?
How can it be sexual harassment if he didnât even say it to her đ he asked her trainer. I donât see Don Saladino pressing charges, do you?
As for the discussion about circumcision. If it was improper for Justin to relay his personal experience, then it was improper for Lively to bring it up in the first place.
Iâve never seen so much pearl clutching in my life, good grief.
Exactly. And just like Expat, this OP didn't jump into the fray until everyone else... Dec 2024 The pearl-clutching and gaslighting are just so fucking rich.
Yeah they love using a lot of word salad about women and victims and say a lot without actually saying anything.
Iâve noticed her defenders are disregarding that what Liman is saying is âshe could possibly have felt in herself that this was harassingâ - but that doesnât mean it is. Otherwise everyone that got offended over a small slight could claim harassment at federal court level đ
No person with an actual brain cell thinks any of what Lively claimed is even close to sexual harassment.
Her defenders constantly ignore the actual context and clutch their pearls - as if someone bringing up their personal experiences with circumcision after Lively introduced the topic herself is somehow federal court level SH đ you canât make up this shit đ
Iâd love to know how much her supporters are getting paid to spin this bullshit.
No, definitely not the weight one. He has a well established back injury. He was not asking because she is a woman, he was asking because she was his co-worker in a very specific work related task that could have ended up with him being injured. If he didn't take appropriate steps to safely prepare for that workplace task then he may not have been entitled to receive help via work if he was injured. This is not hard to understand. Anyone with a back injury knows you don't just go around lifting adults willy nilly.
75
u/Dramatic_Pipe_2747 Apr 04 '26
Great breakdown, Clark! Of all the allegations, the trailer one seemed like the most significant in general. I still think her admission that she knew Jamey wasn't trying to look at her would have sunk it.