Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

NP. I’m confused why you keep saying she was nude in the birth scene? Justin has already countered that. Like many things, Blake seems to be lying or manipulating the facts.

No one except you is saying she was nude in the filmed birth scene. You are either ignornatly or intentionally misreading and misunderstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

Th whole reason nudity riders, closed sets, intimacy coordinators etc came into being was because when there are vulnerabilities like nudity, simulated sex, and physical intimacy in the workplace environment, there needs to be strict controls and oversight to ensure a safe and professional work environment. There are a multitude of stories online from women (and maybe men) who had very negative and even traumatic experiences on set related to the nudity, sex, and intimate scenes. It isn't a free for all. Just because acting in those scenes is part of your job, it doesn't mean boundaries can be crossed, consent doesn't matter, exploitation is fine, or that the director can do whatever they want. It isnt unreasonable to expect those aspects of your job to happen in a professional and safe manner. It should be a very controlled environment to protect people in the workplace from harm. So the fact that a birth scene was part of her acting role doesn't mean she has to be naked on set in front of everyone or else she is unreasonable. There are many stories you can read about how awful actors have felt after sex and romance scenes over the years. You might feel they are all unreasonable but the industry doesn't and has put more parameters in place to create safer work environments.

Isn't part of the issue that she herself didn't meet with the intimacy person?

DP but no, I don't think that's going to play a role in whether or not the birth scene was handled appropriately. The reason why is that the birth scene was not scripted as a nude scene, at any point. So even of Lively declined to meet with the IC to discuss the scripted intimate scenes (the sex scenes, none of which were filmed until after the hiatus) it would not really have any bearing on how this scene was handled. They should have scripted this as a nude scene if that's what they wanted, and given Lively enough time to either consent to that (before the day of shooting) or to negotiate a different approach if that's what she wanted. At that point Lively could also have insisted on the involvement of an IC. But if nudity is only added to the scene right before it's shot, there is no time to get an IC involved, no time to address issues with the nudity rider, etc.

Springing nudity on an actor right before shooting a scene where the script gives no indication whatsoever that the actor will be nude is very poor form, independent of the involvement of an IC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

NP. I’m confused why you keep saying she was nude in the birth scene? Justin has already countered that. Like many things, Blake seems to be lying or manipulating the facts.

No one except you is saying she was nude in the filmed birth scene. You are either ignornatly or intentionally misreading and misunderstanding.

You’re starting to sound a bit unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

She would have a much stronger case if she made a sexual harassment claim during filming. By not doing that she seemingly was OK about all of those other than saying she wanted things changed on set. Even the document that she had him sign, it appears after January 4 with the meeting where Blake blew up at him about fat shaming, everyone moved on. There’s just not a case for sexual harassment here, but that is why they’re not actually suing for sexual harassment. They are suing for retaliation and trying to backtrack into claims that she made turning those into harassment. I think people are greatly underestimating how difficult that is going to be.

There are protocols here for a reason. And if she had made a formal complaint, or any of the other women had made formal complaints, this would be much much easier. But not doing that really weakens their case. We can debate back-and-forth about Justin, his social awkwardness, unprofessionalism on set, and so on, but there is a standard for sexual harassment, and they really really botched any claims to that by not making any complaints at all.

You can really see in the Sony text with Wayfair, they were clearly just trying to please Blake and do what they could to make her more comfortable. Sony saying OK let’s let her have a producer of her choosing on set. OK, we can agree to this OK, we do agree to that. OK we can let her see the dailies. OK we can let her have a crack at editing. But I’m not seen anyone produce text about safety onset, or stemming, sexual harassment, or again SAG would be getting involved.

There’s no doubt that she wanted things changed on that set. Things were not going like she wanted. But that does not mean you can months later claim sexual harassment and retaliation.

I think it’s going to be very easy for Justin to show that he was just trying to protect his reputation from her spearheading having everyone Unfollow him, her putting forth that really awkward premiere, where he was in the basement and separate from the cast, and her not letting anyone do interviews with him. He has a really strong case that he had every right to hire a PR crisis firm.

[Anonymous]

We don’t know anything about the birth scene and what went down. We just have allegations. We’ll have to wait and see what actually transpired. This is one people keep arguing about as if the allegations are proof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

NP. I’m confused why you keep saying she was nude in the birth scene? Justin has already countered that. Like many things, Blake seems to be lying or manipulating the facts.

PP here and I didn't say she was nude. I say that she was pressured to be nude. And she has produced evidence this was the case, and Justin has not disputed it.

The scene was not scripted to be a nude scene. Justin/Heath proposed nudity to her the day of filming. She objected but reluctantly agreed to partial simulated nudity (which would still generally be the kind of nudity that needs to be scripted in advance and actors need to have advanced warning). There is a dispute over how they simulated partial nudity in the scene -- whether it was a modesty strip or a pair of "briefs". But there is not a dispute over whether she simulated partial nudity in the scene. If you watch the scene, you can see that she does. And Baldoni and Heath wanted her to simulate *full* nudity in the scene, and in fact felt so strongly about it that even after the scene had been filmed, they approached her to show her a video of a nude birth to prove some kind of point to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

NP. I’m confused why you keep saying she was nude in the birth scene? Justin has already countered that. Like many things, Blake seems to be lying or manipulating the facts.

No one except you is saying she was nude in the filmed birth scene. You are either ignornatly or intentionally misreading and misunderstanding.

Actually Lively did. She said she was mostly nude with only a small piece of fabric over her privates. But that turned out to be a lie.

[Anonymous]

What is the evidence, PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

She would have a much stronger case if she made a sexual harassment claim during filming. By not doing that she seemingly was OK about all of those other than saying she wanted things changed on set. Even the document that she had him sign, it appears after January 4 with the meeting where Blake blew up at him about fat shaming, everyone moved on. There’s just not a case for sexual harassment here, but that is why they’re not actually suing for sexual harassment. They are suing for retaliation and trying to backtrack into claims that she made turning those into harassment. I think people are greatly underestimating how difficult that is going to be.

There are protocols here for a reason. And if she had made a formal complaint, or any of the other women had made formal complaints, this would be much much easier. But not doing that really weakens their case. We can debate back-and-forth about Justin, his social awkwardness, unprofessionalism on set, and so on, but there is a standard for sexual harassment, and they really really botched any claims to that by not making any complaints at all.

You can really see in the Sony text with Wayfair, they were clearly just trying to please Blake and do what they could to make her more comfortable. Sony saying OK let’s let her have a producer of her choosing on set. OK, we can agree to this OK, we do agree to that. OK we can let her see the dailies. OK we can let her have a crack at editing. But I’m not seen anyone produce text about safety onset, or stemming, sexual harassment, or again SAG would be getting involved.

There’s no doubt that she wanted things changed on that set. Things were not going like she wanted. But that does not mean you can months later claim sexual harassment and retaliation.

I think it’s going to be very easy for Justin to show that he was just trying to protect his reputation from her spearheading having everyone Unfollow him, her putting forth that really awkward premiere, where he was in the basement and separate from the cast, and her not letting anyone do interviews with him. He has a really strong case that he had every right to hire a PR crisis firm.

I don't understand how any of this has anything to do with what I wrote in the previous post. I'm talking about whether their handling of the birth scene could constitute harassment. My point is that based on industry standards and what Baldoni acknowledge himself happened, I do think it could. Regardless of whether Lively ever used the words "sexual harassment" or contacted her union or whatever, the fact pattern here could definitely constitute harassment. That's all I'm saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

She would have a much stronger case if she made a sexual harassment claim during filming. By not doing that she seemingly was OK about all of those other than saying she wanted things changed on set. Even the document that she had him sign, it appears after January 4 with the meeting where Blake blew up at him about fat shaming, everyone moved on. There’s just not a case for sexual harassment here, but that is why they’re not actually suing for sexual harassment. They are suing for retaliation and trying to backtrack into claims that she made turning those into harassment. I think people are greatly underestimating how difficult that is going to be.

There are protocols here for a reason. And if she had made a formal complaint, or any of the other women had made formal complaints, this would be much much easier. But not doing that really weakens their case. We can debate back-and-forth about Justin, his social awkwardness, unprofessionalism on set, and so on, but there is a standard for sexual harassment, and they really really botched any claims to that by not making any complaints at all.

You can really see in the Sony text with Wayfair, they were clearly just trying to please Blake and do what they could to make her more comfortable. Sony saying OK let’s let her have a producer of her choosing on set. OK, we can agree to this OK, we do agree to that. OK we can let her see the dailies. OK we can let her have a crack at editing. But I’m not seen anyone produce text about safety onset, or stemming, sexual harassment, or again SAG would be getting involved.

There’s no doubt that she wanted things changed on that set. Things were not going like she wanted. But that does not mean you can months later claim sexual harassment and retaliation.

I think it’s going to be very easy for Justin to show that he was just trying to protect his reputation from her spearheading having everyone Unfollow him, her putting forth that really awkward premiere, where he was in the basement and separate from the cast, and her not letting anyone do interviews with him. He has a really strong case that he had every right to hire a PR crisis firm.

I don't understand how any of this has anything to do with what I wrote in the previous post. I'm talking about whether their handling of the birth scene could constitute harassment. My point is that based on industry standards and what Baldoni acknowledge himself happened, I do think it could. Regardless of whether Lively ever used the words "sexual harassment" or contacted her union or whatever, the fact pattern here could definitely constitute harassment. That's all I'm saying.

It could just as easily constitute creative differences. I think some of this comes with making a movie that includes intimate scenes. So a director can’t advocate for their vision without being accused of harassment? If there was a power imbalance in Justin’s favor perhaps this would be a bigger concern, but the power imbalance was in Lively’s favor on that set and at no point was she at any real risk of having to do something she didn’t want. She was the a-lister. The highest paid by far. They accommodated everything she asked for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

NP. I’m confused why you keep saying she was nude in the birth scene? Justin has already countered that. Like many things, Blake seems to be lying or manipulating the facts.

No one except you is saying she was nude in the filmed birth scene. You are either ignornatly or intentionally misreading and misunderstanding.

Actually Lively did. She said she was mostly nude with only a small piece of fabric over her privates. But that turned out to be a lie.

That's a misrepresentation of what her complaint said. There was a footnote that explained how nudity is simulated in a scene like this. Some people read that to meant that was what they wanted her to wear in the scene. Others interpreted it to mean that's what she actually wore in the scene. It was not clear, which might have been intentional but on the other hand it was just a complaint and there was plenty of time for clarification.

Baldoni's complaint is also weirdly misleading on this point. He claims she was "fully clothed" and describes her as wearing a hospital gown, pregnancy "suit", and "briefs. But this is misleading because the way she is positioned in the scene means that the hospital gown only covers her breasts and nothing else. The pregnancy "suit" is actually a belt that just goes over her belly. And "briefs" indicates a pair of underwear, yes? Well I do not consider myself fully clothed when wearing nothing but a pair of underwear over my private parts, especially not if I'm lying in a hospital bed with my legs up in stirrups (as opposed to on a beach).

I'm sure we'll eventually find out exactly what she was wearing and whether it meets the industry standards for simulated partial nudity or not. Based on viewing the scene in question, I think it's likely that this would be considered simulating partial nudity (and thus requiring a nudity rider, and recommending 48 hour notice, and the presence of an IC on set).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

NP. I’m confused why you keep saying she was nude in the birth scene? Justin has already countered that. Like many things, Blake seems to be lying or manipulating the facts.

No one except you is saying she was nude in the filmed birth scene. You are either ignornatly or intentionally misreading and misunderstanding.

Actually Lively did. She said she was mostly nude with only a small piece of fabric over her privates. But that turned out to be a lie.

We don't know that was a lie. I have no idea what the raw footage will show. Blake said she didn't have on underwear and only fabric between her legs, Justin said she did have full underwear on (that is edited out). Who is telling the truth and who is lying... I don't know but given it is on film, it won't be hard to prove.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well well well. The SNL “joke” was all Ryan’s idea (and presumably facilitated by Ari thru Lorne)…

https://pagesix.com/2025/02/19/entertainment/ryan-reynolds-pitched-snl-50-joke-about-justin-baldoni-legal-drama-staffer-claims/

This leak teases out SNL cast and staff never wanted to be a part of this and don't want to be blamed for something so distasteful.

This is one person at SNL -- the cue card guy -- saying that what Ryan said changed from how it was originally written. That means Tina's intro of "How are things going, Ryan" or whatever was the same. It also says nothing about the whole Ari whatever connection that PP has speculated on over the last 50 pages and adds no support for that, which so far is completely within PP's head. This is not a position statement by SNL or its staff or Tina Fey or anyone else, but a random comment by the cue card guy.

I haven't ever seen Page Six linked so much in a DCUM thread, ever, and I've got to say it's kind of a gross publication. Who spends their time reading all of this ridiculousness? Who writes it? Blech.

You’ve never heard of Page Six? It’s the most popular NYC-centric entertainment tabloid in the world. SNL 50th and all those A-list stars partying in Manhattan is their beat.

I also love how you gloss over 1) why Ryan and Blake were even there and 2) why this crowd work bit was even in the show. They were clearly only there for this bit, which their people obviously moved mountains for to get it forced into the 50th show. Such a bit on such an episode is priceless; you can’t just buy such a thing. Bonafide entertainment muscle at the highest expelled for that. And again, it just illustrates how freaking arrogant and out of touch Blake, Ryan, and their team are. No ability to read the room. Daisy and Tom…

They were there as former hosts. A lot of former hosts were there. And the audience crowd work was definitely planned by the show's writing staff (who included Tina Fey for this episode) and was not structured around Reynolds/Lively. Did you watch the whole bit? It featured Jon Hamm, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Bad Bunny, Fred Armisen, Jon Levitz, Al Sharpton, Peyton Manning, Quinta Brunson, and a bunch of other people. You think everyone was in on it? Like 30 people were all strong-armed into doing a 10 minute bit just so Ryan Reynolds could say one quick line about "why what have you heard?" referencing their ongoing legal issues?

It's fine if you believe Baldoni over Lively. Truly, I don't care. But this level of conspiracy mongering is bizarre. It was nothing. A tossed off line meant to acknowledge an ongoing issue without getting into it. It didn't land, either in the room or with the television audience, but some of you are making it into a much bigger thing than it was. I think some of you have just gotten into a mode where hating Lively and Reynolds is like your favorite hobby, and you'll go looking for reasons to criticize them wherever you can find them.

This was nothing. It doesn't matter.

Different poster. I agree Blake and Ryan had a right to be there as they each hosted one time and they’ve also each made an appearance one time separately, Blake on a lonely Island digital short in 2010 and Ryan more recently at the update desk with Colin.

I did find it a little annoying that he had a speaking role when most of those went to either former cast members or longtime friends of the show, people who had hosted for years. Or even Nate Bargatze, who hosted twice in one season because he’s so popular right now, and his one skit went viral and got a ton of attention.

So yes, I was kind of annoyed that Ryan was allowed to have a speaking role on the show when he really doesn’t have any kind of special relationship with the show. But the thing that really annoys me is that you could tell it was last minute. I mean, the conehead joke just bombed. It didn’t make any sense for it to be there. Why would Ryan be backstage in the make up area of SNL eating conehead parts? Whereas the rest of the skit went really well and I thought everyone nailed it. So it did seem like someone was calling in a last minute favor. And I’m sure SNL liked it because it did create a lot of buzz and they were able to make a joke about the whole How are you? Why? What have you heard?

I also think it stands out for people because Scarlett Johansson was all over the show, it was partly her night, and Colin’s night, and it just felt weird that Ryan had to make it partly about him. And given it didn’t exactly turn the public to their favor it felt like a misstep on everyone’s part.

So agreed there wasn’t some big conspiracy, but I do think a favor was called in.

+1 that part was very odd
It did feel like he was added last minute and the writers didn't want to expend any effort but the charade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

This is a strange take not really grounded in the law. Actors have a lot of protections on set linked to filming nude and intimate scenes, and that are memorialized in union guidelines and reinforced by industry standards and commitments by studios. So it would actually be *easier* for an actor to show harassment linked to a nude or intimate scene because the industry has so many standards surrounding these scenes and there's an extensive history of this kind of scene being used as a mechanism for harassment.

The reason I cite the birth scene is because it was clearly not scripted as a nude scene. Industry standards are pretty explicit about the need for actors to have advance warning of nudity and for certain precautions to be taken on a set to protect their privacy and agency in those scenes. So if Lively can show she was pressured to do the scene nude or partially nude the day of the shoot, even though the script says nothing about nudity for this scene, this creates a strong presumption of malfeasance. Right off the bat, Baldoni and Wayfarer are deviating from industry standards on an issue that is known to pose a consent/harassment issue. This is a major problem for Wayfarer and goes to the "severity" of the problem -- springing unscripted nudity on an actress right before filming a scene is likely to be considered a severe problem, not a minor one, due to industry guidelines.

And bookending this issue is the fact that according to Baldoni's own timeline, Heath showed Lively the video of his wife the day AFTER the birth scene was filmed. Note Wayfarer does not contend that they planned to reshoot the birth scene. This choice to re-engage on the issue of nudity even after the scene has been filmed speaks to pervasiveness. Had they proposed nudity in the scene, had it rejected but agreed to simulating semi-nudity, and then moved on. Perhaps this would not be enough. But the fact that the scene was filmed and Lively believed the issue to be settled, and then Heath is approaching her (at Baldoni's insistence) to show her a personal video of a nude birth without her express consent? This is very, very problematic for them. She'd already not only registered her objection to nudity in the scene but also expressed her disagreement over nudity in birth generally. So why are Heath and Baldoni persisting in this debate? There is no justifiable work-related reason for showing her that video at that point. It points strongly to harassment.

And that is just the sequence of events around the birth scene. If she can also show other incidents, this strengthens her claim considerably. If on top of that, she can show that other actresses on set experienced boundary-violating behavior from Baldoni and/or Heath? This looks very bad for them, I'm sorry. This is kind of textbook hostile work environment.

She would have a much stronger case if she made a sexual harassment claim during filming. By not doing that she seemingly was OK about all of those other than saying she wanted things changed on set. Even the document that she had him sign, it appears after January 4 with the meeting where Blake blew up at him about fat shaming, everyone moved on. There’s just not a case for sexual harassment here, but that is why they’re not actually suing for sexual harassment. They are suing for retaliation and trying to backtrack into claims that she made turning those into harassment. I think people are greatly underestimating how difficult that is going to be.

There are protocols here for a reason. And if she had made a formal complaint, or any of the other women had made formal complaints, this would be much much easier. But not doing that really weakens their case. We can debate back-and-forth about Justin, his social awkwardness, unprofessionalism on set, and so on, but there is a standard for sexual harassment, and they really really botched any claims to that by not making any complaints at all.

You can really see in the Sony text with Wayfair, they were clearly just trying to please Blake and do what they could to make her more comfortable. Sony saying OK let’s let her have a producer of her choosing on set. OK, we can agree to this OK, we do agree to that. OK we can let her see the dailies. OK we can let her have a crack at editing. But I’m not seen anyone produce text about safety onset, or stemming, sexual harassment, or again SAG would be getting involved.

There’s no doubt that she wanted things changed on that set. Things were not going like she wanted. But that does not mean you can months later claim sexual harassment and retaliation.

I think it’s going to be very easy for Justin to show that he was just trying to protect his reputation from her spearheading having everyone Unfollow him, her putting forth that really awkward premiere, where he was in the basement and separate from the cast, and her not letting anyone do interviews with him. He has a really strong case that he had every right to hire a PR crisis firm.

I don't understand how any of this has anything to do with what I wrote in the previous post. I'm talking about whether their handling of the birth scene could constitute harassment. My point is that based on industry standards and what Baldoni acknowledge himself happened, I do think it could. Regardless of whether Lively ever used the words "sexual harassment" or contacted her union or whatever, the fact pattern here could definitely constitute harassment. That's all I'm saying.

It could just as easily constitute creative differences. I think some of this comes with making a movie that includes intimate scenes. So a director can’t advocate for their vision without being accused of harassment? If there was a power imbalance in Justin’s favor perhaps this would be a bigger concern, but the power imbalance was in Lively’s favor on that set and at no point was she at any real risk of having to do something she didn’t want. She was the a-lister. The highest paid by far. They accommodated everything she asked for.

Again, your comment doesn't seem related to mine. You can't have "creative differences" over whether or not an actor is nude in a scene. It's a contractual issue. Either the scene is scripted as a nude scene and you follow certain protocols for it (including plenty of notice to the actor and efforts to protect their privacy on set, plus having a valid nudity rider in place in advance of filming) or you don't.

It is unclear to me why they woudn't have just scripted the scene as a nude scene and made it clear to Lively well in advance that this is what they were going for. Even rookie directors generally know that you need actors to be on board with any nude and intimate scenes from the start because they don't have to agree to it on set. So it strikes me as sloppy and lazy at a minimum that they would think they could just spring the nudity on her the day of. That's not creative differences, that's mismanagement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on a read of the EEOC pages on sexual harrassment, I don't think the bar is as high as many think it is. Sexual harrassment can include offensive comments about women in general and can be when verbal or physical harassment (in person or otherwise) of a sexual nature creates a hostile or offensive work environment for someone.

So yes, it can be multiple incidents that lead to someone feeling they are in an offensive work environment.

I have some experience sexual harassment cases and I agree. I think she could get a harassment finding based just on the way the birth scene was handled, if she can show they pressured her to do nudity not in the script, that her requests for a cover were ignored, that the monitors were turned back on while the scene was being shot, and that Heath showed her that video of his wife AFTER the birth scene had been filmed. That sequence of events is actually a pretty strong showing of sexual harassment under the law because it's persistent and unwanted, over two consecutive days. That would have been enough in a lot of the cases I was involved in.

Generally with sexual harassment cases, the issue is in showing harm. Perhaps you can show harassment occurred but if the company can put a stop to it and the victim's career is unimpeded (not fired, not denied promotions, etc.), the payout can be relatively small. This is why retaliation is so often a feature of sexual harassment cases because that's when you get into real harm that can result in meaningful restitution. Usually the retaliation takes the form of someone losing their job, being demoted or denied a promotion they were expected to get, or being "iced out" in a workplace in an effort to get them to quit. You also see retaliation in the form of refusing to give references or spreading rumors about the victim within the industry.

Without retaliation, it can often not be particularly useful to bring an SH claim, especially if there are internal ways of addressing the problem that are satisfactory to the victim. Often EEOC complaints don't go to the litigation phase because once the company is alerted to the seriousness of the matter via an EEOC complaint, they make efforts to remediate and avoid litigation.

It’s actually fairly hard to show sexual harassment - it has to be “severe or pervasive.” A handful of incidents don’t do it. It also cannot be totally subjective or unreasonable, and I think there’s a very strong case to show she was being unreasonable in finding offense doing what her actual job was (acting out romance and childbirth scenes). The whole IC thing is very muddled but it seems like her decision not to meet with the IC at one point also is a strike against her.

Th whole reason nudity riders, closed sets, intimacy coordinators etc came into being was because when there are vulnerabilities like nudity, simulated sex, and physical intimacy in the workplace environment, there needs to be strict controls and oversight to ensure a safe and professional work environment. There are a multitude of stories online from women (and maybe men) who had very negative and even traumatic experiences on set related to the nudity, sex, and intimate scenes. It isn't a free for all. Just because acting in those scenes is part of your job, it doesn't mean boundaries can be crossed, consent doesn't matter, exploitation is fine, or that the director can do whatever they want. It isnt unreasonable to expect those aspects of your job to happen in a professional and safe manner. It should be a very controlled environment to protect people in the workplace from harm. So the fact that a birth scene was part of her acting role doesn't mean she has to be naked on set in front of everyone or else she is unreasonable. There are many stories you can read about how awful actors have felt after sex and romance scenes over the years. You might feel they are all unreasonable but the industry doesn't and has put more parameters in place to create safer work environments.

Isn't part of the issue that she herself didn't meet with the intimacy person?

DP but no, I don't think that's going to play a role in whether or not the birth scene was handled appropriately. The reason why is that the birth scene was not scripted as a nude scene, at any point. So even of Lively declined to meet with the IC to discuss the scripted intimate scenes (the sex scenes, none of which were filmed until after the hiatus) it would not really have any bearing on how this scene was handled. They should have scripted this as a nude scene if that's what they wanted, and given Lively enough time to either consent to that (before the day of shooting) or to negotiate a different approach if that's what she wanted. At that point Lively could also have insisted on the involvement of an IC. But if nudity is only added to the scene right before it's shot, there is no time to get an IC involved, no time to address issues with the nudity rider, etc.

Springing nudity on an actor right before shooting a scene where the script gives no indication whatsoever that the actor will be nude is very poor form, independent of the involvement of an IC.

All the IC stuff falls flat with me after seeing the Nicepool sketch Ryan created based off of Baldoni where Nicepool asks for an IC and is made to look like a stick-in-the-mud, whiny little beeyotch for doing so. That plus Blake blowing off the initial meeting does not tell me these people adhere or care about the strictest levels of professionalism.