Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t want to live in world where successful, powerful women are viewed as this fragile. And where they can use this so-called fragility as a weapon.

My husband, a very kind and well-liked nontoxic man, told me last year that he won’t have meetings in his office with just one woman. Is this really us winning? We can only meet men in groups?

I wonder if this is why many women are on his side. Because it just feels so…ridiculous. Blake could wear whatever she wanted in that scene. All she had to do what tell them.

Yes, exactly. Would anyone really force her to be nude? No. And ultimately she wasn’t nude. So, what’s the problem? Someone may have mentioned that some women give birth nude? I mean, move on, man. Enough!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Agree, there was a clear double standard here. Blake and Ryan were allowed to use sexually themed language, Blake was openly breastfeeding in front of people, Blake initially declined meeting with the IC, unsure if she ever met with one during this film. While Baldoni was on fact the director here, and seemingly as soon as something didn’t go Blake and Ryan’s way they pounced.

When and where was Blake openly breastfeeding in front of people? I don't recall that in any of the 4 complaints.

She invited Justin to come up while she was breastfeeding, to run through their lines.

She says in her complaint that on that occasion, she was covered before she invited them in (and she was pumping, not breastfeeding). So she consented on that occasion to them being present after taking whatever measures she felt comfortable taking to cover herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The texts between Abel and Nathan (I think) talk about their work to suppress "HR complaints" with the "four majors" -- who are the four majors in that context? Are those actors making the complaints or the publications they would have been revealed in?

I interpreted that as Abel and Nathan's references to someome (Lively's team) shopping around stories about inappropriate behavior on set (shorthanded as "HR complaints" in the texts but I am not sure if they refer to actual written complaints or just complaints of an "HR" nature) and the "four majors" as media outlets that had been shopped the story and that Abel and Nathan had gotten to agree not to publish the stories, possibly because there was a lack of evidence for "the "four majors" to risk publishing them. In other contexts they refer to "fat shaming" and "sexy" comments so these may, or may not, be the referenced "HR complaints."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Agree, there was a clear double standard here. Blake and Ryan were allowed to use sexually themed language, Blake was openly breastfeeding in front of people, Blake initially declined meeting with the IC, unsure if she ever met with one during this film. While Baldoni was on fact the director here, and seemingly as soon as something didn’t go Blake and Ryan’s way they pounced.

When and where was Blake openly breastfeeding in front of people? I don't recall that in any of the 4 complaints.

She invited Justin to come up while she was breastfeeding, to run through their lines.

I mean who hasn’t invited a male work colleague to your room to go over a PowerPoint or Excel spreadsheets while your boobs are out breast pumping. She was trying to bait him and set him up from the very get go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Also, we have on film, Blake improvising an unscripted kissing scene with baldoni. She got caught in an interview with someone saying I love how you directed that scene where you were showing Justin how you wanted to be kissed. And she got really nervous and was like where did you see that? I think a fan captured it and put it on Instagram but it’s all over for all of us to see.

The whole thing is beyond fake. Seems like a shakedown extortion scheme from jump street. Almost like it was an M.O. she or they have done before. And they seemed to have had shyster lawyers coaching them on how to do it, how to bait him, and to keep a diary of trumped up crap. And then using celeb friends to intimidate reveals them to be moochers and users. These are not genius masterminds, they’re dimwitted egomaniacs who thought they’d steamroll this man. They weren’t prepared for him to fight back and for millions of random fans on social media to perform deep dive autopsies on their long-term behavior, careers and the legal proceedings. Now they are way, way over their skis and don’t know how to exit. They are so rattled. The SNL stunt was so desperate and eliminated any spec of benefit of the doubt they had left.

It’s all so bad and predictable, it almost has to be their MO. This was planned .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Agree, there was a clear double standard here. Blake and Ryan were allowed to use sexually themed language, Blake was openly breastfeeding in front of people, Blake initially declined meeting with the IC, unsure if she ever met with one during this film. While Baldoni was on fact the director here, and seemingly as soon as something didn’t go Blake and Ryan’s way they pounced.

When and where was Blake openly breastfeeding in front of people? I don't recall that in any of the 4 complaints.

She invited Justin to come up while she was breastfeeding, to run through their lines.

I mean who hasn’t invited a male work colleague to your room to go over a PowerPoint or Excel spreadsheets while your boobs are out breast pumping. She was trying to bait him and set him up from the very get go.

Her boobs weren't out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Also, we have on film, Blake improvising an unscripted kissing scene with baldoni. She got caught in an interview with someone saying I love how you directed that scene where you were showing Justin how you wanted to be kissed. And she got really nervous and was like where did you see that? I think a fan captured it and put it on Instagram but it’s all over for all of us to see.

She addresses this issue in her amended complaint, have you read it? The kissing in the scene you’re referencing was expected as it was specifically written in the script. The kissing on the dance floor was not written in the script. Starting to kiss Lively in the dance floor scene turned it into a scene that normally would have required the IC, whereas it would not have been required based on what was just written in the script.

Come on now. No one brings in an IC for clothed scenes involving kissing. ICs are brought in for highly sexual or compromising scenes. So, "your going to be naked and getting gang banged" yes. "You're sitting on this park bench and he leans in to kiss you" no friggin' way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Agree, there was a clear double standard here. Blake and Ryan were allowed to use sexually themed language, Blake was openly breastfeeding in front of people, Blake initially declined meeting with the IC, unsure if she ever met with one during this film. While Baldoni was on fact the director here, and seemingly as soon as something didn’t go Blake and Ryan’s way they pounced.

When and where was Blake openly breastfeeding in front of people? I don't recall that in any of the 4 complaints.

She invited Justin to come up while she was breastfeeding, to run through their lines.

She says in her complaint that on that occasion, she was covered before she invited them in (and she was pumping, not breastfeeding). So she consented on that occasion to them being present after taking whatever measures she felt comfortable taking to cover herself.

What would have happened if the reverse were true. What if Justin invited Blake up while he was doing whatever under a cover. This was inappropriate on her part. So so inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your wife claims she was brutally sexually harassed & the first thing you do when you make your first public appearance together in a while is... orchestrate a joke about it?Fraudster psychopaths.

This is insane, binary thinking. Ryan did not claim harassment. His wife did. Tina and Amy asked Ryan how things are going, and he replied with faux concern about what they had heard. About him. They didn’t say “how is Blake?” They didn’t say “what’s up with SH?” They said, how’s it going. There are crazy texts out there that RR sent to JB, including the weird joke about his perenium. The comment was CLEARLY about RR and his own weird engagement in this goat rodeo. You all can be convinced it was ill advised (probably was) but to say “he is making a joke about his wife’s harassment” is insane.

Not to mention, she never said the harassment was her biggest issue. She felt she handled that, or she would have gone for different claims. She’s mad that JB later retaliated.

I don’t like either of them, and find them all cringey but man do you all struggle with flexible thinking.

I agree with you. I am not sure if it is a sock puppet on here that just posts most of the nonsense or if there are multiple people who lack any critical or flexible thinking or undersanding of nuance and just jumped on the Justin great, Blake evil bandwagon and have hung on ever since.

Pretty much all of social media has taken his skit as a joke about her lawsuit, but I guess you two are the geniuses that really know how to interpret it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Agree, there was a clear double standard here. Blake and Ryan were allowed to use sexually themed language, Blake was openly breastfeeding in front of people, Blake initially declined meeting with the IC, unsure if she ever met with one during this film. While Baldoni was on fact the director here, and seemingly as soon as something didn’t go Blake and Ryan’s way they pounced.

When and where was Blake openly breastfeeding in front of people? I don't recall that in any of the 4 complaints.

She invited Justin to come up while she was breastfeeding, to run through their lines.

She says in her complaint that on that occasion, she was covered before she invited them in (and she was pumping, not breastfeeding). So she consented on that occasion to them being present after taking whatever measures she felt comfortable taking to cover herself.

What would have happened if the reverse were true. What if Justin invited Blake up while he was doing whatever under a cover. This was inappropriate on her part. So so inappropriate.

I am pretty sure breastfeeding is legal in public. Women need to feed children. The fact you equate that to masturbation or to voyerism is very odd and really says a lot about you - not the movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Agree, there was a clear double standard here. Blake and Ryan were allowed to use sexually themed language, Blake was openly breastfeeding in front of people, Blake initially declined meeting with the IC, unsure if she ever met with one during this film. While Baldoni was on fact the director here, and seemingly as soon as something didn’t go Blake and Ryan’s way they pounced.

When and where was Blake openly breastfeeding in front of people? I don't recall that in any of the 4 complaints.

She invited Justin to come up while she was breastfeeding, to run through their lines.

I mean who hasn’t invited a male work colleague to your room to go over a PowerPoint or Excel spreadsheets while your boobs are out breast pumping. She was trying to bait him and set him up from the very get go.

Her boobs weren't out.

Please. Even if she was covered, it was inappropriate. He can talk about women giving birth nude but she can pump her breasts in front of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Agree, there was a clear double standard here. Blake and Ryan were allowed to use sexually themed language, Blake was openly breastfeeding in front of people, Blake initially declined meeting with the IC, unsure if she ever met with one during this film. While Baldoni was on fact the director here, and seemingly as soon as something didn’t go Blake and Ryan’s way they pounced.

When and where was Blake openly breastfeeding in front of people? I don't recall that in any of the 4 complaints.

She invited Justin to come up while she was breastfeeding, to run through their lines.

She says in her complaint that on that occasion, she was covered before she invited them in (and she was pumping, not breastfeeding). So she consented on that occasion to them being present after taking whatever measures she felt comfortable taking to cover herself.

What would have happened if the reverse were true. What if Justin invited Blake up while he was doing whatever under a cover. This was inappropriate on her part. So so inappropriate.

I am pretty sure breastfeeding is legal in public. Women need to feed children. The fact you equate that to masturbation or to voyerism is very odd and really says a lot about you - not the movie.

Pumping can be done on a schedule. The fact that Blake couldn’t manage her time effectively enough to schedule a private pumping time and then chose to invite a man in while doing so, says a lot about her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like it was Freedman's plan all along to *require* personal service during the LA wildfires rather than just agree to waive personal service and receive service through a third party. That way Freedman could go on tv and complain about Lively serving Baldoni etc during the wildfires, while meanwhile Freedman was chasing people down dark roads etc. Lively agreed to waive service and didn't go on tv about it or anything, so missed opportunity I guess:

"This filing [of voluntary waivers of service for Lively] was necessitated by Plaintiffs’ curious decision to insist upon personally hand-serving Defendants notwithstanding prior correspondence in which counsel for Ms. Lively informed Plaintiffs of their preference to work with opposing counsel to effectuate service in a collegial and efficient manner. See Ex. A at 5. Despite this history, Plaintiffs’ process servers made attempts at service on the evening of January 18, 2025, which resulted in one of Defendants’ employees (who is not a party to this action) being followed to the residence in which she was staying by an unknown vehicle down a dark road late at night; this conduct was sufficiently alarming as to cause that employee to file a police report. See Ex. A at 1. Accordingly, undersigned counsel reached out to Mr. Freedman on the evening of January 18, 2025 to express serious safety and privacy concerns that Plaintiffs’ attempts at service were creating, and advised Plaintiffs’ counsel of the requirement under Rule 4(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that any “individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4(e), (f), or (h) has a duty … avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons.” Undersigned counsel therefore told Mr. Freedman that Ms. Lively and Mr. Reynolds would waive service, and that this firm was authorized to accept service on their behalf. See Ex. A at 2. Earlier today, I provided Mr. Freedman and his colleagues with copies of the waivers and requested confirmation of receipt, Ex. A at 1, but as of the time of this filing, I have received no reply."

Really classy, Mr. Freedman. All for show. Great guy.

Yes, how dare Freedman be unavailable as his house was burning down. I wouldn’t put it past him to have started the wildfire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Agree, there was a clear double standard here. Blake and Ryan were allowed to use sexually themed language, Blake was openly breastfeeding in front of people, Blake initially declined meeting with the IC, unsure if she ever met with one during this film. While Baldoni was on fact the director here, and seemingly as soon as something didn’t go Blake and Ryan’s way they pounced.

When and where was Blake openly breastfeeding in front of people? I don't recall that in any of the 4 complaints.

She invited Justin to come up while she was breastfeeding, to run through their lines.

I mean who hasn’t invited a male work colleague to your room to go over a PowerPoint or Excel spreadsheets while your boobs are out breast pumping. She was trying to bait him and set him up from the very get go.

Yes, didn’t she accuse another man, Heath? of making eye contact with her while she was breastfeeding? If she was so concerned with privacy and modesty, taking on a role like this as a breastfeeding, postpartum mom of four probably wasn’t the best idea. Really, like it just was bad timing, that’s a messy, emotionally tumultuous time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like it was Freedman's plan all along to *require* personal service during the LA wildfires rather than just agree to waive personal service and receive service through a third party. That way Freedman could go on tv and complain about Lively serving Baldoni etc during the wildfires, while meanwhile Freedman was chasing people down dark roads etc. Lively agreed to waive service and didn't go on tv about it or anything, so missed opportunity I guess:

"This filing [of voluntary waivers of service for Lively] was necessitated by Plaintiffs’ curious decision to insist upon personally hand-serving Defendants notwithstanding prior correspondence in which counsel for Ms. Lively informed Plaintiffs of their preference to work with opposing counsel to effectuate service in a collegial and efficient manner. See Ex. A at 5. Despite this history, Plaintiffs’ process servers made attempts at service on the evening of January 18, 2025, which resulted in one of Defendants’ employees (who is not a party to this action) being followed to the residence in which she was staying by an unknown vehicle down a dark road late at night; this conduct was sufficiently alarming as to cause that employee to file a police report. See Ex. A at 1. Accordingly, undersigned counsel reached out to Mr. Freedman on the evening of January 18, 2025 to express serious safety and privacy concerns that Plaintiffs’ attempts at service were creating, and advised Plaintiffs’ counsel of the requirement under Rule 4(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that any “individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4(e), (f), or (h) has a duty … avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons.” Undersigned counsel therefore told Mr. Freedman that Ms. Lively and Mr. Reynolds would waive service, and that this firm was authorized to accept service on their behalf. See Ex. A at 2. Earlier today, I provided Mr. Freedman and his colleagues with copies of the waivers and requested confirmation of receipt, Ex. A at 1, but as of the time of this filing, I have received no reply."

Really classy, Mr. Freedman. All for show. Great guy.

Yes, how dare Freedman be unavailable as his house was burning down. I wouldn’t put it past him to have started the wildfire.

If you look at the papers filed with the doc, though, it shows Freeman being completely unresponsive to Wilkie Farr's requests to waive service between DECEMBER 31 THROUGH JANUARY 19. That's nearly a three week period that began well before the LA fires started, during which Freedman completely failed to respond to four different emails and multiple phone calls. So, I'm sure he wants to posture it that way and seems like some people are completely falling for that, but that is not reality.