Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

[Anonymous]

The opinion is 150 pages. I can’t imagined how this is tried with what’s left —Baldoni and Heath presumably now have the defense that their actions were in response to Blake weaponizing false sexual harassment claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

Losing them on a legal technicality = a huge win for Baldoni though.

Even NAG said the SH claims were a high bar and Lively was better off focusing on relation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

Losing them on a legal technicality = a huge win for Baldoni though.

Even NAG said the SH claims were a high bar and Lively was better off focusing on relation.

I don’t see how she can win on retaliation without legally viable sh claims. Their defense will be her attacks on them first.

And let’s not start revisionist history, there are hundreds of pages just on dcum of Blake bots arguing that the sexual harassment claims were strong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

Losing them on a legal technicality = a huge win for Baldoni though.

Even NAG said the SH claims were a high bar and Lively was better off focusing on relation.

I don’t see how she can win on retaliation without legally viable sh claims. Their defense will be her attacks on them first.

And let’s not start revisionist history, there are hundreds of pages just on dcum of Blake bots arguing that the sexual harassment claims were strong.

Because you don’t understand the standard of proof for retaliation .

Also here are direct quotes from the opinion about the judges views on her sexual harassment claims.

“a jury could conclude that Lively opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment”

“there is sufficient evidence that it was reasonable for her to believe that the Wayfarer Parties sexually harassed her by creating a hostile work environment.”

“a person in her position could have understood the workplace to at times reflect a gendered and sexualized view of women”

“it was far from baseless.”

[Anonymous]

Blake, the idiot liar, is getting everything she deserves lmao

[Anonymous]

Do you think Blake will allow this to go to trial and how badly do you think the trial will be for Blake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

Losing them on a legal technicality = a huge win for Baldoni though.

Even NAG said the SH claims were a high bar and Lively was better off focusing on relation.

I don’t see how she can win on retaliation without legally viable sh claims. Their defense will be her attacks on them first.

And let’s not start revisionist history, there are hundreds of pages just on dcum of Blake bots arguing that the sexual harassment claims were strong.

Because you don’t understand the standard of proof for retaliation .

Also here are direct quotes from the opinion about the judges views on her sexual harassment claims.

“a jury could conclude that Lively opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment”

“there is sufficient evidence that it was reasonable for her to believe that the Wayfarer Parties sexually harassed her by creating a hostile work environment.”

“a person in her position could have understood the workplace to at times reflect a gendered and sexualized view of women”

“it was far from baseless.”

It’s you that is confused. She can argue that and they can argue her belief was unreasonable and even that she didn’t believe it to be sexual harassment and instead just made up allegations to hurt them. And the jury will be aware there are no sexual harassment claims for them to decide. I’m not sure she wants this trial given the further harm to her reputation and much more limited damages claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think Blake will allow this to go to trial and how badly do you think the trial will be for Blake?

I think it quite likely it won’t go to trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think Blake will allow this to go to trial and how badly do you think the trial will be for Blake?

I think this was an opinion aimed to drive a settlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

Losing them on a legal technicality = a huge win for Baldoni though.

Even NAG said the SH claims were a high bar and Lively was better off focusing on relation.

I don’t see how she can win on retaliation without legally viable sh claims. Their defense will be her attacks on them first.

And let’s not start revisionist history, there are hundreds of pages just on dcum of Blake bots arguing that the sexual harassment claims were strong.

Because you don’t understand the standard of proof for retaliation .

Also here are direct quotes from the opinion about the judges views on her sexual harassment claims.

“a jury could conclude that Lively opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment”

“there is sufficient evidence that it was reasonable for her to believe that the Wayfarer Parties sexually harassed her by creating a hostile work environment.”

“a person in her position could have understood the workplace to at times reflect a gendered and sexualized view of women”

“it was far from baseless.”

It’s you that is confused. She can argue that and they can argue her belief was unreasonable and even that she didn’t believe it to be sexual harassment and instead just made up allegations to hurt them. And the jury will be aware there are no sexual harassment claims for them to decide. I’m not sure she wants this trial given the further harm to her reputation and much more limited damages claim.

Again you do not understand the standard of proof of retaliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

Losing them on a legal technicality = a huge win for Baldoni though.

Even NAG said the SH claims were a high bar and Lively was better off focusing on relation.

I don’t see how she can win on retaliation without legally viable sh claims. Their defense will be her attacks on them first.

And let’s not start revisionist history, there are hundreds of pages just on dcum of Blake bots arguing that the sexual harassment claims were strong.

Because you don’t understand the standard of proof for retaliation .

Also here are direct quotes from the opinion about the judges views on her sexual harassment claims.

“a jury could conclude that Lively opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment”

“there is sufficient evidence that it was reasonable for her to believe that the Wayfarer Parties sexually harassed her by creating a hostile work environment.”

“a person in her position could have understood the workplace to at times reflect a gendered and sexualized view of women”

“it was far from baseless.”

The judge seems to have been sympathetic to her perception of events, even if the technicalities favored Baldoni. Can you tell us more about the legal standard for retaliation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

Losing them on a legal technicality = a huge win for Baldoni though.

Even NAG said the SH claims were a high bar and Lively was better off focusing on relation.

In
I don’t see how she can win on retaliation without legally viable sh claims. Their defense will be her attacks on them first.

And let’s not start revisionist history, there are hundreds of pages just on dcum of Blake bots arguing that the sexual harassment claims were strong.

Because you don’t understand the standard of proof for retaliation .

Also here are direct quotes from the opinion about the judges views on her sexual harassment claims.

“a jury could conclude that Lively opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment”

“there is sufficient evidence that it was reasonable for her to believe that the Wayfarer Parties sexually harassed her by creating a hostile work environment.”

“a person in her position could have understood the workplace to at times reflect a gendered and sexualized view of women”

“it was far from baseless.”

It’s you that is confused. She can argue that and they can argue her belief was unreasonable and even that she didn’t believe it to be sexual harassment and instead just made up allegations to hurt them. And the jury will be aware there are no sexual harassment claims for them to decide. I’m not sure she wants this trial given the further harm to her reputation and much more limited damages claim.

Again you do not understand the standard of proof of retaliation.

You literally quoted language from the opinion where the judge said it was for the jury to decide if her beliefs were reasonable (“ a jury could conclude .”). That means the other side can offer evidence why they were not. And regardless of standard of proof, the jury will be influenced by the fact that there are no claims of sexual harassment before them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

Losing them on a legal technicality = a huge win for Baldoni though.

Even NAG said the SH claims were a high bar and Lively was better off focusing on relation.

I don’t see how she can win on retaliation without legally viable sh claims. Their defense will be her attacks on them first.

And let’s not start revisionist history, there are hundreds of pages just on dcum of Blake bots arguing that the sexual harassment claims were strong.

Because you don’t understand the standard of proof for retaliation .

Also here are direct quotes from the opinion about the judges views on her sexual harassment claims.

“a jury could conclude that Lively opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment”

“there is sufficient evidence that it was reasonable for her to believe that the Wayfarer Parties sexually harassed her by creating a hostile work environment.”

“a person in her position could have understood the workplace to at times reflect a gendered and sexualized view of women”

“it was far from baseless.”

The judge seems to have been sympathetic to her perception of events, even if the technicalities favored Baldoni. Can you tell us more about the legal standard for retaliation?

Give me a break, those are four partial sentences from a 150 page opinion. The judge appeared very skeptical of her sexual harassment claims at the hearing (noting that her claims had to be evaluated in the context of a making a movie with nudity and love scenes). If she had brought stronger claims of sexual harassment, he would have been more reluctant to dismiss.

[Anonymous]

We’ve been told for over a year that Baldoni’s lawyers were bozos and Blake’s geniuses, and yet Blake’s lawyers equally unable to plead actionable claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

Losing them on a legal technicality = a huge win for Baldoni though.

Even NAG said the SH claims were a high bar and Lively was better off focusing on relation.

In
I don’t see how she can win on retaliation without legally viable sh claims. Their defense will be her attacks on them first.

And let’s not start revisionist history, there are hundreds of pages just on dcum of Blake bots arguing that the sexual harassment claims were strong.

Because you don’t understand the standard of proof for retaliation .

Also here are direct quotes from the opinion about the judges views on her sexual harassment claims.

“a jury could conclude that Lively opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment”

“there is sufficient evidence that it was reasonable for her to believe that the Wayfarer Parties sexually harassed her by creating a hostile work environment.”

“a person in her position could have understood the workplace to at times reflect a gendered and sexualized view of women”

“it was far from baseless.”

It’s you that is confused. She can argue that and they can argue her belief was unreasonable and even that she didn’t believe it to be sexual harassment and instead just made up allegations to hurt them. And the jury will be aware there are no sexual harassment claims for them to decide. I’m not sure she wants this trial given the further harm to her reputation and much more limited damages claim.

Again you do not understand the standard of proof of retaliation.

You literally quoted language from the opinion where the judge said it was for the jury to decide if her beliefs were reasonable (“ a jury could conclude .”). That means the other side can offer evidence why they were not. And regardless of standard of proof, the jury will be influenced by the fact that there are no claims of sexual harassment before them.

A claim of retaliation does not, and probably will not, address the sexual retaliation claims or whether there is sufficient proof of them. They only need to prove she engaged in protected activity (initiating a complaint) and that the defendants retaliated due to her complaint.

It would be nonsensical to believe that it is ok to retaliate if the hostile work environment or sexual harassment claims did not meet the legal standard. It is the act of being able to initiate a complaint about potential harassment or hostile work environment which is protected.