Justin Baldoni addresses the court ruling after a judge dismissed most claims in Blake Lively’s lawsuit against him. Judge Lewis Liman rejected 10 of the 13 allegations, including sexual harassment and fat-shaming accusations, while allowing retaliation, aiding and abetting retaliation, and breach of contract claims to proceed. The trial remains set for May 18 in New York City.
Baldoni’s Legal Team Reacts to Victory
Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach, attorneys for Baldoni, express satisfaction with the decision. ‘We’re very pleased the Court dismissed all sexual harassment claims and every claim brought against the individual defendants: Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel,’ they state. ‘These were very serious allegations, and we are grateful to the Court for its careful review of the facts, law and voluminous evidence that was provided.’
They note the remaining case is significantly narrowed and look forward to defending it in court.
Lively’s Team Focuses on Retaliation
Sigrid McCawley, from Lively’s legal team, emphasizes the core issue. ‘This case has always been and will remain focused on the devastating retaliation and the extraordinary steps the defendants took to destroy Blake Lively’s reputation because she stood up for safety on the set and that is the case that is going to trial,’ McCawley says.
‘For Blake Lively, the greatest measure of justice is that the people and the playbook behind these coordinated digital attacks have been exposed and are already being held accountable by other women they’ve targeted. She looks forward to testifying at trial and continuing to shine a light on this vicious form of online retaliation so that it becomes easier to detect and fight.’
McCawley adds that sexual harassment claims proceed not due to lack of wrongdoing but because the court classified Lively as an independent contractor, not an employee.
Reasons for Dismissing Claims
Judge Liman rules the Actor Loanout Agreement (ALA) unenforceable since Lively never signed it after negotiations stalled. ‘It is clear that the ALA is not and has never been a validly formed and binding contract,’ the judge writes in the 152-page decision.
The court rejects arguments that partial agreement or discussions formed a contract. Liman highlights Lively’s extensive control over production, classifying her as an independent contractor under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California Labor Code. Factors include her 12-hour workday cap, song selection rights, shot oversight, and script rewrites.
‘Although not every factor weighs equally in favor of that conclusion when viewed in isolation, analyzing the factors collectively eliminates any genuine dispute,’ Liman states.
Specific Allegations Rejected
Fat-shaming claims fail as Baldoni’s inquiries about Lively’s weight align with role requirements. ‘The conduct cannot reasonably be viewed as expressing hostility to Lively as a woman or to women in general,’ the judge rules, citing Lively’s own fitness efforts for the film’s aesthetic.
Sexual harassment incidents, like an unscripted kiss during filming or trailer visits, do not create a hostile environment. Liman notes creative improvisation occurs in acting and lacks discriminatory intent.
Remaining Claims and Case Background
Retaliation claims under the signed Contract Rider Agreement (CRA) survive. This January 2024 document, listing 17 requirements for Lively’s return, prohibits retaliation for raising set concerns.
The dispute stems from It Ends With Us production. Lively accuses Baldoni of harassment, boundary-crossing, and a smear campaign. Baldoni denies all allegations. The film, based on Colleen Hoover’s novel, grossed $350 million globally despite the controversy.
