Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume there are HR complaints at all businesses. And I assume what you as a business are supposed to do is appropriately address the complaint.

It sounds like these complaints were all rather minor and were all addressed appropriately. (Don’t come at me, birth scene lady! I know how you feel!) So I’m not sure why we need to dwell on them to the degree that we are.

I understand that it’s much more complicated than this because of the retaliation claim, but at the same time, I don’t necessarily think it warrants such strangulation of every complaint.

She felt uncomfortable for . . . reasons. They addressed it, as any business should. It’s what happened next where everything gets murky for me. Did she then use the complaint as extortion—or did he retaliate to delegitimize her claim? Both? Neither?

My point is that I don’t really care what Jenny Slate did or didn’t complain about. That was between Slate and Wayfarer to deal with as appropriate. I sort of wish maybe we could just agree here that Blake made a SH claim (even if you think she was being oversensitive) and move on. Seems like there’s still plenty of other stuff to argue about.

Article was stealth edited. There was no HR complaint. It is hearsay and gossip. Nothing more. Mud thrown at the wall by you know who. BL & RR pulling every lever and string they can. I hope he never settles.

They edited it back and now it says complaint again, so I'm guessing there was a complaint.

Ooh. Any screenshots?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/justin-baldoni-bahai-blake-lively-legal-feud-1236142565/

"THR has learned more about the nature of the complaint that It Ends With Us actress Jenny Slate lodged, which is referenced in court documents but with Slate’s name redacted" it says it back again

maybe it wasn't an official complaint but Sony made a note of it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I assume there are HR complaints at all businesses. And I assume what you as a business are supposed to do is appropriately address the complaint.

It sounds like these complaints were all rather minor and were all addressed appropriately. (Don’t come at me, birth scene lady! I know how you feel!) So I’m not sure why we need to dwell on them to the degree that we are.

I understand that it’s much more complicated than this because of the retaliation claim, but at the same time, I don’t necessarily think it warrants such strangulation of every complaint.

She felt uncomfortable for . . . reasons. They addressed it, as any business should. It’s what happened next where everything gets murky for me. Did she then use the complaint as extortion—or did he retaliate to delegitimize her claim? Both? Neither?

My point is that I don’t really care what Jenny Slate did or didn’t complain about. That was between Slate and Wayfarer to deal with as appropriate. I sort of wish maybe we could just agree here that Blake made a SH claim (even if you think she was being oversensitive) and move on. Seems like there’s still plenty of other stuff to argue about.

I disagree with you about Jenny because I want to know if Blake did or did not Poison the cast against him. If it was just Blake and Ryan that unfollowed him, and the rest of the cast were willing to do marketing with him and not avoid talking about him in interviews when they were asked, I really don’t think a lot of this would’ve taken place. People were really confused as to why the whole cast had turned against him and that’s when a lot of stories started about how he must’ve been awful. It’s very relevant.

If it were just Blake and Justin feuding, I think people would’ve just been like oh well Justin‘s intense and Blake is difficult and that’s probably why. But she created this whole narrative.

Further, I want to know if there were other people were officially complaining on that set. For Jenny to go to HR, it must’ve been somewhat of a big deal. Not necessarily in sexual nature, though, but she must’ve felt weirded out. If she didn’t and the story was completely overblown, and she just rolled her eyes and told Blake that guy is weird, that is a very important difference. That makes a stronger case that Blake was overreacting to things and oversensitive and or making things up.

One more thing to add, I went back and read Jenny‘s press release when she came out to support Blake back in December before Justin‘s lawsuit came out. It was all about the retaliation it seems. She didn’t mention any experience that she had on set. She said she supported Blake, but I find it kind of odd that she didn’t say, it was a very difficult set or it was a very difficult process making this movie. She left a lot of room that she was horrified by the retaliation, but nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume there are HR complaints at all businesses. And I assume what you as a business are supposed to do is appropriately address the complaint.

It sounds like these complaints were all rather minor and were all addressed appropriately. (Don’t come at me, birth scene lady! I know how you feel!) So I’m not sure why we need to dwell on them to the degree that we are.

I understand that it’s much more complicated than this because of the retaliation claim, but at the same time, I don’t necessarily think it warrants such strangulation of every complaint.

She felt uncomfortable for . . . reasons. They addressed it, as any business should. It’s what happened next where everything gets murky for me. Did she then use the complaint as extortion—or did he retaliate to delegitimize her claim? Both? Neither?

My point is that I don’t really care what Jenny Slate did or didn’t complain about. That was between Slate and Wayfarer to deal with as appropriate. I sort of wish maybe we could just agree here that Blake made a SH claim (even if you think she was being oversensitive) and move on. Seems like there’s still plenty of other stuff to argue about.

Why is this important to you? If this was your brother and he was falsely accused, would you want people to follow the evidence or would you want to assume the person who started this be required to give a deposition under oath as to what happened, etc?

I’m trying not to make it about my son or my daughter, but about how any business should professionally operate to protect all parties and handle complaints. You don’t even know whose “side” I’m on.

Honest question here: Let’s say you are a business owner and an employee makes a claim that you believe to be false. You log the complaint but don’t fire them, because you don’t want to fire them for making a complaint. Then they start saying they are going to alert the media about the complaint if you don’t give them X, Y, or Z. (Or, more realistically, they underperform or are combative at work, but now you are afraid to fire them.) If they go to the media, your business loses substantial business. If you fire them, they might sue for retaliation. What is the appropriate thing to do? Is there an HR playbook for this sort of thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume there are HR complaints at all businesses. And I assume what you as a business are supposed to do is appropriately address the complaint.

It sounds like these complaints were all rather minor and were all addressed appropriately. (Don’t come at me, birth scene lady! I know how you feel!) So I’m not sure why we need to dwell on them to the degree that we are.

I understand that it’s much more complicated than this because of the retaliation claim, but at the same time, I don’t necessarily think it warrants such strangulation of every complaint.

She felt uncomfortable for . . . reasons. They addressed it, as any business should. It’s what happened next where everything gets murky for me. Did she then use the complaint as extortion—or did he retaliate to delegitimize her claim? Both? Neither?

My point is that I don’t really care what Jenny Slate did or didn’t complain about. That was between Slate and Wayfarer to deal with as appropriate. I sort of wish maybe we could just agree here that Blake made a SH claim (even if you think she was being oversensitive) and move on. Seems like there’s still plenty of other stuff to argue about.

Why is this important to you? If this was your brother and he was falsely accused, would you want people to follow the evidence or would you want to assume the person who started this be required to give a deposition under oath as to what happened, etc?

I’m trying not to make it about my son or my daughter, but about how any business should professionally operate to protect all parties and handle complaints. You don’t even know whose “side” I’m on.

Honest question here: Let’s say you are a business owner and an employee makes a claim that you believe to be false. You log the complaint but don’t fire them, because you don’t want to fire them for making a complaint. Then they start saying they are going to alert the media about the complaint if you don’t give them X, Y, or Z. (Or, more realistically, they underperform or are combative at work, but now you are afraid to fire them.) If they go to the media, your business loses substantial business. If you fire them, they might sue for retaliation. What is the appropriate thing to do? Is there an HR playbook for this sort of thing?

The only way to try to protect yourself is to avoid hiring people who are overly sensitive or crazy. By crazy, I think we all know a coworker who centers themselves in everything and hears things that weren’t actually said and interprets everything as aggression.

Jenny Slate is a potty-mouth weirdo (per her stand-up) who has a lot of baggage and weird takes on things (per her interviews where she talks about herself and decades in therapy).

And Blake is just the textbook Queen Bee.

In terms of how Hollywood protects themselves from this sort of HR nightmare, nobody will work with these actors again. They’ve outed themselves as problematic…all of them.

There are no winners here.

[Anonymous]

Starting to wonder whether it was Baldoni’s PR firm that was pushing the negative story about Slate “hitting” Evans (without the context that it was for the movie). That seems like the kind of MO they have to discredit women making complaints. And they definitely do work on Reddit. I wonder how much of what we are talking about in this thread is just stuff planted by Wallace et al.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume there are HR complaints at all businesses. And I assume what you as a business are supposed to do is appropriately address the complaint.

It sounds like these complaints were all rather minor and were all addressed appropriately. (Don’t come at me, birth scene lady! I know how you feel!) So I’m not sure why we need to dwell on them to the degree that we are.

I understand that it’s much more complicated than this because of the retaliation claim, but at the same time, I don’t necessarily think it warrants such strangulation of every complaint.

She felt uncomfortable for . . . reasons. They addressed it, as any business should. It’s what happened next where everything gets murky for me. Did she then use the complaint as extortion—or did he retaliate to delegitimize her claim? Both? Neither?

My point is that I don’t really care what Jenny Slate did or didn’t complain about. That was between Slate and Wayfarer to deal with as appropriate. I sort of wish maybe we could just agree here that Blake made a SH claim (even if you think she was being oversensitive) and move on. Seems like there’s still plenty of other stuff to argue about.

Why is this important to you? If this was your brother and he was falsely accused, would you want people to follow the evidence or would you want to assume the person who started this be required to give a deposition under oath as to what happened, etc?

I’m trying not to make it about my son or my daughter, but about how any business should professionally operate to protect all parties and handle complaints. You don’t even know whose “side” I’m on.

Honest question here: Let’s say you are a business owner and an employee makes a claim that you believe to be false. You log the complaint but don’t fire them, because you don’t want to fire them for making a complaint. Then they start saying they are going to alert the media about the complaint if you don’t give them X, Y, or Z. (Or, more realistically, they underperform or are combative at work, but now you are afraid to fire them.) If they go to the media, your business loses substantial business. If you fire them, they might sue for retaliation. What is the appropriate thing to do? Is there an HR playbook for this sort of thing?

In your scenario, the key here is that the employee "makes a claim that you believe to be false."

The first step is that you should conduct an investigation into the claim. You want the person or people investigating the claim to be as neutral as possible. In most workplaces, this would be an HR person. Depending on the nature of the claim, it could be worth it to bring in someone from outside to ensure impartiality. Depending on the size of the company, that might mean someone from outside the organization altogether, or it could means someone from another office or division who doesn't personally know any of the involved parties.

At the end of the investigation, it should no longer be about what you, personally, believe. You get a report from the investigator and can act on that. Most of the time that action won't involve firing anyone. It could just involve requiring people to undertake certain training or asking involved parties to attend a mediation. An experienced HR person or outside investigator (some law firms even specialize in these kinds of investigations, for instance) will know how to conduct the investigation so that the person who raised the claim feels heard and respected even if it turns out their claim does not rise to the level of harassment or is based on a misunderstanding or just an interpersonal conflict. The experienced HR/investigator can also guide you on how to handle it to avoid escalating but also not retaliating or violating anyone's employment rights.

What employers should not do is try to wing it or assume that their personal opinion on the matter is sufficient. Saying "oh I believe this is false" is an extremely dicey position to take because there are lots of ways for bias to creep into that assessment. You need to rely on impartial professionals to determine if the claim has merit and then advise you on moving forward. Otherwise you run the risk of dismissing valid complaints (because you failed to conduct a fair investigation into them) and escalating matters because a wronged party does not feel their concerns have been heard or taken seriously.

So yes, there is an HR playbook for this. You must investigate all claims. You need to remove bias and opinion from the process and rely as much as possible on objectivity. You need to respect the rights of all involved parties and look for resolutions that are proactive, rather than punitive, and also protect you from liability while protecting employees from retaliatory action.

I will also note that there are a number of proactive things employers can do to avoid having these kinds of complaints come up often, and I can spot a few red flags in how Wayfarer conducted their business that made complaints like this more likely. The biggest ones being that they appeared to make personnel decisions based on existing friendships and shared religious affinity, which makes it very hard to conduct objective internal investigations, they created a culture where unwanted touch or commentary might be harder to anticipate or address (a very touch-feely culture where people are encouraged to share personal things about themselves -- this is risky), and it appears they did not have strong or clear pathways for addressing low level interpersonal issues within the company (if there had been better methods for reporting or addressing concerns, you wouldn't see people trying to involve Sony in the matter). Even if no one at Wayfarer intentionally harassed anyone, I would view these lapses as negligent, on their part, and would recommend addressing them promptly to avoid future issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Starting to wonder whether it was Baldoni’s PR firm that was pushing the negative story about Slate “hitting” Evans (without the context that it was for the movie). That seems like the kind of MO they have to discredit women making complaints. And they definitely do work on Reddit. I wonder how much of what we are talking about in this thread is just stuff planted by Wallace et al.

Yes I have followed the conversation on this on Reddit pretty closely and one of the weirder things is that any post, on any subreddit, that mentions Jed Wallace or Bryan Freedman by name, gets heavily downvoted. It's actually crazy, it happens even if they are simply mentioned in passing in a neutral way (like "I wonder what the outcome of Jed Wallace's lawsuit in Texas will be"). It's actually creepy and has become something mods are aware of. A lot of people on Reddit now use pseudonyms for them to avoid downvoting. I've seen it happen in pro-JB subs, pro-BL subs, neutral subs, and the big celeb gossip subs like r/Fauxmoi and r/popculturechat.

At this point I would be shocked to discover that Wallace and Freedman *don't* have some kind of bot army out there. It's just uncanny how their mentions get downvoted immediately and keep commentary about them buried at the bottom of subs. It does not seem possible that it could be "organic" engagement. Even on pro-JB subs you won't see mentions of either of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Starting to wonder whether it was Baldoni’s PR firm that was pushing the negative story about Slate “hitting” Evans (without the context that it was for the movie). That seems like the kind of MO they have to discredit women making complaints. And they definitely do work on Reddit. I wonder how much of what we are talking about in this thread is just stuff planted by Wallace et al.

Uh, that story is years old and she’s the one who actually told it. let’s try to keep away from conspiracy theories at the least

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting to wonder whether it was Baldoni’s PR firm that was pushing the negative story about Slate “hitting” Evans (without the context that it was for the movie). That seems like the kind of MO they have to discredit women making complaints. And they definitely do work on Reddit. I wonder how much of what we are talking about in this thread is just stuff planted by Wallace et al.

Yes I have followed the conversation on this on Reddit pretty closely and one of the weirder things is that any post, on any subreddit, that mentions Jed Wallace or Bryan Freedman by name, gets heavily downvoted. It's actually crazy, it happens even if they are simply mentioned in passing in a neutral way (like "I wonder what the outcome of Jed Wallace's lawsuit in Texas will be"). It's actually creepy and has become something mods are aware of. A lot of people on Reddit now use pseudonyms for them to avoid downvoting. I've seen it happen in pro-JB subs, pro-BL subs, neutral subs, and the big celeb gossip subs like r/Fauxmoi and r/popculturechat.

At this point I would be shocked to discover that Wallace and Freedman *don't* have some kind of bot army out there. It's just uncanny how their mentions get downvoted immediately and keep commentary about them buried at the bottom of subs. It does not seem possible that it could be "organic" engagement. Even on pro-JB subs you won't see mentions of either of them.

Wow that is freaky. I just hope it all comes out in discovery but am also worried they are so dirty they will hide it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone found out whether Jenny Slate actually formally lodged a complaint to Sony or simply complained about an inappropriate comment and word got back to Sony? Because the THR article has changed the wording. It's interesting if the initial claim is to be believed, how was she able to go to Sony with a complaint about a comment as innocuous as the sanctity of motherhood and Blake was allegedly not in regards to sexual harassment and told to report to wayfarer? Wouldn't they not have told Jenny to report back to Wayfarer as well? None of this adds up.

Because it’s all bullshit. This is an all hands on deck multi-million dollar crisis PR mud slinging campaign hoping to muscle Justin into a hush settlement before discovery and depositions.

I hope it doesn't settle before depositions and I hope the depos are made public. At least the transcripts. Because I want dirt!

But I don't share your viewpoint about Baldoni's side being in the right. I think Baldoni's deposition is going to be a MESS. I also assume Lively's will be as well. I think they are both super messy. But... I love mess.

Taylor, Ari, Blake and Ryan have exponentially more to lose than Justin. And Justin is on far firmer footing.

Taylor has nothing to do with any of this. She was used so BL and RR could namedrop her. She isn't involved in this idiocy.
DP

Didn't one of the actresses say in an interview that Taylor helped her get a role and also helped I. Other casting decisions? Seems like involvement.....

https://www.eonline.com/news/1413732/how-taylor-swift-was-allegedly-involved-in-casting-it-ends-with-us

Is that relevant to any of the causes of action in any of the lawsuits though? I don't think it is.

It’s relevant because Taylor’s camp has lied to the press about the meeting with Justin. She claimed she met him in passing one time when he was leaving Blake’s house and she was entering. However, Justin is on record saying he showed the casting tapes to Taylor and Blake (long before that supposed meeting) which IF’s statement corroborates. The implication is TS had more involvement than she’s admitting, which is why she will definitely be deposed.

Which legal claim is that relevant to?

Justin’s countersuit and the takeover motive in which he claims Blake used her dragons to bully him.

What legal claim is "the takeover motive" related to? Is he suing for "bullying" because that's not a legal claim.

I know this will come as a shock to some of you, but "she stole my movie" is not a legal claim, nor is "I felt really intimidated when her very famous friend told me the scene she wrote was really good." You might be mad about these things but they aren't legal claims.

His strongest claim is defamation, and it's actually not that strong unless he can prove that she falsified into in her suit or the NYT article. He's also suing for extortion but it's a huge stretch and doesn't make sense, plus what are the damages? It actually is still Wayfarer's movie even if Sony decided to release Blake's cut, and they made a ton of movie off of it.

I think the extortion claims are going to be dismissed, and he'll only proceed with the defamation claims, and that will mean all the "evidence" about Taylor, the conflict over editing and scoring, everything related to her "stealing" the movie will be deemed irrelevant.

This case is about whether SH occurred, whether Baldoni et al retaliated, and whether Blake or her team defamed Baldoni. That's it.

The rest of this stuff is extraneous BS that Baldoni's lawyer threw in to try and embarrass or intimidate Lively. It's a classic "oh you want to sue? Ok, well let's spill aaaaaaallllll the tea then." But it didn't work so the case is going to go to motions to dismiss, at a minimum, and probably at least start discovery. We'll see after that.

“she’s a bully with a goal of taking over the movie” is not a legal claim (except maybe contract but that hasn’t been raised). it is the way he is going to disprove the harassment and retaliation claims. It’s a defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume there are HR complaints at all businesses. And I assume what you as a business are supposed to do is appropriately address the complaint.

It sounds like these complaints were all rather minor and were all addressed appropriately. (Don’t come at me, birth scene lady! I know how you feel!) So I’m not sure why we need to dwell on them to the degree that we are.

I understand that it’s much more complicated than this because of the retaliation claim, but at the same time, I don’t necessarily think it warrants such strangulation of every complaint.

She felt uncomfortable for . . . reasons. They addressed it, as any business should. It’s what happened next where everything gets murky for me. Did she then use the complaint as extortion—or did he retaliate to delegitimize her claim? Both? Neither?

My point is that I don’t really care what Jenny Slate did or didn’t complain about. That was between Slate and Wayfarer to deal with as appropriate. I sort of wish maybe we could just agree here that Blake made a SH claim (even if you think she was being oversensitive) and move on. Seems like there’s still plenty of other stuff to argue about.

Why is this important to you? If this was your brother and he was falsely accused, would you want people to follow the evidence or would you want to assume the person who started this be required to give a deposition under oath as to what happened, etc?

I’m trying not to make it about my son or my daughter, but about how any business should professionally operate to protect all parties and handle complaints. You don’t even know whose “side” I’m on.

Honest question here: Let’s say you are a business owner and an employee makes a claim that you believe to be false. You log the complaint but don’t fire them, because you don’t want to fire them for making a complaint. Then they start saying they are going to alert the media about the complaint if you don’t give them X, Y, or Z. (Or, more realistically, they underperform or are combative at work, but now you are afraid to fire them.) If they go to the media, your business loses substantial business. If you fire them, they might sue for retaliation. What is the appropriate thing to do? Is there an HR playbook for this sort of thing?

yes of course there is a playbook. It’s called “call your lawyer.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Starting to wonder whether it was Baldoni’s PR firm that was pushing the negative story about Slate “hitting” Evans (without the context that it was for the movie). That seems like the kind of MO they have to discredit women making complaints. And they definitely do work on Reddit. I wonder how much of what we are talking about in this thread is just stuff planted by Wallace et al.

Yes I have followed the conversation on this on Reddit pretty closely and one of the weirder things is that any post, on any subreddit, that mentions Jed Wallace or Bryan Freedman by name, gets heavily downvoted. It's actually crazy, it happens even if they are simply mentioned in passing in a neutral way (like "I wonder what the outcome of Jed Wallace's lawsuit in Texas will be"). It's actually creepy and has become something mods are aware of. A lot of people on Reddit now use pseudonyms for them to avoid downvoting. I've seen it happen in pro-JB subs, pro-BL subs, neutral subs, and the big celeb gossip subs like r/Fauxmoi and r/popculturechat.

At this point I would be shocked to discover that Wallace and Freedman *don't* have some kind of bot army out there. It's just uncanny how their mentions get downvoted immediately and keep commentary about them buried at the bottom of subs. It does not seem possible that it could be "organic" engagement. Even on pro-JB subs you won't see mentions of either of them.

Js people were bringing up having bots before the Blake/Justin case happened. His bot usage are known

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume there are HR complaints at all businesses. And I assume what you as a business are supposed to do is appropriately address the complaint.

It sounds like these complaints were all rather minor and were all addressed appropriately. (Don’t come at me, birth scene lady! I know how you feel!) So I’m not sure why we need to dwell on them to the degree that we are.

I understand that it’s much more complicated than this because of the retaliation claim, but at the same time, I don’t necessarily think it warrants such strangulation of every complaint.

She felt uncomfortable for . . . reasons. They addressed it, as any business should. It’s what happened next where everything gets murky for me. Did she then use the complaint as extortion—or did he retaliate to delegitimize her claim? Both? Neither?

My point is that I don’t really care what Jenny Slate did or didn’t complain about. That was between Slate and Wayfarer to deal with as appropriate. I sort of wish maybe we could just agree here that Blake made a SH claim (even if you think she was being oversensitive) and move on. Seems like there’s still plenty of other stuff to argue about.

Why is this important to you? If this was your brother and he was falsely accused, would you want people to follow the evidence or would you want to assume the person who started this be required to give a deposition under oath as to what happened, etc?

I’m trying not to make it about my son or my daughter, but about how any business should professionally operate to protect all parties and handle complaints. You don’t even know whose “side” I’m on.

Honest question here: Let’s say you are a business owner and an employee makes a claim that you believe to be false. You log the complaint but don’t fire them, because you don’t want to fire them for making a complaint. Then they start saying they are going to alert the media about the complaint if you don’t give them X, Y, or Z. (Or, more realistically, they underperform or are combative at work, but now you are afraid to fire them.) If they go to the media, your business loses substantial business. If you fire them, they might sue for retaliation. What is the appropriate thing to do? Is there an HR playbook for this sort of thing?

In your scenario, the key here is that the employee "makes a claim that you believe to be false."

The first step is that you should conduct an investigation into the claim. You want the person or people investigating the claim to be as neutral as possible. In most workplaces, this would be an HR person. Depending on the nature of the claim, it could be worth it to bring in someone from outside to ensure impartiality. Depending on the size of the company, that might mean someone from outside the organization altogether, or it could means someone from another office or division who doesn't personally know any of the involved parties.

At the end of the investigation, it should no longer be about what you, personally, believe. You get a report from the investigator and can act on that. Most of the time that action won't involve firing anyone. It could just involve requiring people to undertake certain training or asking involved parties to attend a mediation. An experienced HR person or outside investigator (some law firms even specialize in these kinds of investigations, for instance) will know how to conduct the investigation so that the person who raised the claim feels heard and respected even if it turns out their claim does not rise to the level of harassment or is based on a misunderstanding or just an interpersonal conflict. The experienced HR/investigator can also guide you on how to handle it to avoid escalating but also not retaliating or violating anyone's employment rights.

What employers should not do is try to wing it or assume that their personal opinion on the matter is sufficient. Saying "oh I believe this is false" is an extremely dicey position to take because there are lots of ways for bias to creep into that assessment. You need to rely on impartial professionals to determine if the claim has merit and then advise you on moving forward. Otherwise you run the risk of dismissing valid complaints (because you failed to conduct a fair investigation into them) and escalating matters because a wronged party does not feel their concerns have been heard or taken seriously.

So yes, there is an HR playbook for this. You must investigate all claims. You need to remove bias and opinion from the process and rely as much as possible on objectivity. You need to respect the rights of all involved parties and look for resolutions that are proactive, rather than punitive, and also protect you from liability while protecting employees from retaliatory action.

I will also note that there are a number of proactive things employers can do to avoid having these kinds of complaints come up often, and I can spot a few red flags in how Wayfarer conducted their business that made complaints like this more likely. The biggest ones being that they appeared to make personnel decisions based on existing friendships and shared religious affinity, which makes it very hard to conduct objective internal investigations, they created a culture where unwanted touch or commentary might be harder to anticipate or address (a very touch-feely culture where people are encouraged to share personal things about themselves -- this is risky), and it appears they did not have strong or clear pathways for addressing low level interpersonal issues within the company (if there had been better methods for reporting or addressing concerns, you wouldn't see people trying to involve Sony in the matter). Even if no one at Wayfarer intentionally harassed anyone, I would view these lapses as negligent, on their part, and would recommend addressing them promptly to avoid future issues.

Doubtful that Freedman would be involved. A lot of people on this thread seem to want to put the lawyers on trial. Seems desperate. Blake is losing so it’s not enough to smear Justin, let’s smear the lawyers too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume there are HR complaints at all businesses. And I assume what you as a business are supposed to do is appropriately address the complaint.

It sounds like these complaints were all rather minor and were all addressed appropriately. (Don’t come at me, birth scene lady! I know how you feel!) So I’m not sure why we need to dwell on them to the degree that we are.

I understand that it’s much more complicated than this because of the retaliation claim, but at the same time, I don’t necessarily think it warrants such strangulation of every complaint.

She felt uncomfortable for . . . reasons. They addressed it, as any business should. It’s what happened next where everything gets murky for me. Did she then use the complaint as extortion—or did he retaliate to delegitimize her claim? Both? Neither?

My point is that I don’t really care what Jenny Slate did or didn’t complain about. That was between Slate and Wayfarer to deal with as appropriate. I sort of wish maybe we could just agree here that Blake made a SH claim (even if you think she was being oversensitive) and move on. Seems like there’s still plenty of other stuff to argue about.

Why is this important to you? If this was your brother and he was falsely accused, would you want people to follow the evidence or would you want to assume the person who started this be required to give a deposition under oath as to what happened, etc?

I’m trying not to make it about my son or my daughter, but about how any business should professionally operate to protect all parties and handle complaints. You don’t even know whose “side” I’m on.

Honest question here: Let’s say you are a business owner and an employee makes a claim that you believe to be false. You log the complaint but don’t fire them, because you don’t want to fire them for making a complaint. Then they start saying they are going to alert the media about the complaint if you don’t give them X, Y, or Z. (Or, more realistically, they underperform or are combative at work, but now you are afraid to fire them.) If they go to the media, your business loses substantial business. If you fire them, they might sue for retaliation. What is the appropriate thing to do? Is there an HR playbook for this sort of thing?

yes of course there is a playbook. It’s called “call your lawyer.”

I think regardless of whose side you come down on in this whole thing, it should be obvious that Wayfarer bungled the situation with a bad HR response. They should have gotten HR involved very early on and conducted an investigation within the first couple weeks of filming. It looks like Baldoni and Heath decided to freelance regarding the complaints and this is so, so stupid. This is why you have HR! Or why you hire attorneys. Even if the complaints weren't filed formally (though this raises a question about whether they had a formal complaint process and if it was effective) some level headed person should have said "ok, there is conflict, let's initiate an HR review and interview parties and find a resolution." I am honestly confused as to why they wouldn't. I get that a film set is a different kind of workplace but I also get the impression that it's also one where people tend to know their employment rights a bit better because so many people are union, working on negotiated contracts, or have agents/reps. So it seems like it would be even easier to have that conversation, IMO, than in a standard workplace where most workers and managers are ignorant of employment rights and processes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume there are HR complaints at all businesses. And I assume what you as a business are supposed to do is appropriately address the complaint.

It sounds like these complaints were all rather minor and were all addressed appropriately. (Don’t come at me, birth scene lady! I know how you feel!) So I’m not sure why we need to dwell on them to the degree that we are.

I understand that it’s much more complicated than this because of the retaliation claim, but at the same time, I don’t necessarily think it warrants such strangulation of every complaint.

She felt uncomfortable for . . . reasons. They addressed it, as any business should. It’s what happened next where everything gets murky for me. Did she then use the complaint as extortion—or did he retaliate to delegitimize her claim? Both? Neither?

My point is that I don’t really care what Jenny Slate did or didn’t complain about. That was between Slate and Wayfarer to deal with as appropriate. I sort of wish maybe we could just agree here that Blake made a SH claim (even if you think she was being oversensitive) and move on. Seems like there’s still plenty of other stuff to argue about.

Why is this important to you? If this was your brother and he was falsely accused, would you want people to follow the evidence or would you want to assume the person who started this be required to give a deposition under oath as to what happened, etc?

I’m trying not to make it about my son or my daughter, but about how any business should professionally operate to protect all parties and handle complaints. You don’t even know whose “side” I’m on.

Honest question here: Let’s say you are a business owner and an employee makes a claim that you believe to be false. You log the complaint but don’t fire them, because you don’t want to fire them for making a complaint. Then they start saying they are going to alert the media about the complaint if you don’t give them X, Y, or Z. (Or, more realistically, they underperform or are combative at work, but now you are afraid to fire them.) If they go to the media, your business loses substantial business. If you fire them, they might sue for retaliation. What is the appropriate thing to do? Is there an HR playbook for this sort of thing?

In your scenario, the key here is that the employee "makes a claim that you believe to be false."

The first step is that you should conduct an investigation into the claim. You want the person or people investigating the claim to be as neutral as possible. In most workplaces, this would be an HR person. Depending on the nature of the claim, it could be worth it to bring in someone from outside to ensure impartiality. Depending on the size of the company, that might mean someone from outside the organization altogether, or it could means someone from another office or division who doesn't personally know any of the involved parties.

At the end of the investigation, it should no longer be about what you, personally, believe. You get a report from the investigator and can act on that. Most of the time that action won't involve firing anyone. It could just involve requiring people to undertake certain training or asking involved parties to attend a mediation. An experienced HR person or outside investigator (some law firms even specialize in these kinds of investigations, for instance) will know how to conduct the investigation so that the person who raised the claim feels heard and respected even if it turns out their claim does not rise to the level of harassment or is based on a misunderstanding or just an interpersonal conflict. The experienced HR/investigator can also guide you on how to handle it to avoid escalating but also not retaliating or violating anyone's employment rights.

What employers should not do is try to wing it or assume that their personal opinion on the matter is sufficient. Saying "oh I believe this is false" is an extremely dicey position to take because there are lots of ways for bias to creep into that assessment. You need to rely on impartial professionals to determine if the claim has merit and then advise you on moving forward. Otherwise you run the risk of dismissing valid complaints (because you failed to conduct a fair investigation into them) and escalating matters because a wronged party does not feel their concerns have been heard or taken seriously.

So yes, there is an HR playbook for this. You must investigate all claims. You need to remove bias and opinion from the process and rely as much as possible on objectivity. You need to respect the rights of all involved parties and look for resolutions that are proactive, rather than punitive, and also protect you from liability while protecting employees from retaliatory action.

I will also note that there are a number of proactive things employers can do to avoid having these kinds of complaints come up often, and I can spot a few red flags in how Wayfarer conducted their business that made complaints like this more likely. The biggest ones being that they appeared to make personnel decisions based on existing friendships and shared religious affinity, which makes it very hard to conduct objective internal investigations, they created a culture where unwanted touch or commentary might be harder to anticipate or address (a very touch-feely culture where people are encouraged to share personal things about themselves -- this is risky), and it appears they did not have strong or clear pathways for addressing low level interpersonal issues within the company (if there had been better methods for reporting or addressing concerns, you wouldn't see people trying to involve Sony in the matter). Even if no one at Wayfarer intentionally harassed anyone, I would view these lapses as negligent, on their part, and would recommend addressing them promptly to avoid future issues.

Doubtful that Freedman would be involved. A lot of people on this thread seem to want to put the lawyers on trial. Seems desperate. Blake is losing so it’s not enough to smear Justin, let’s smear the lawyers too.

Are you responding to the correct post? PP here and I didn't mention Freedman. He's a litigator and his firm is, I believe, a litigation boutique, so that's not who you would contact to conduct an investigation into a workplace complaint. If you hired a firm for it, you'd hire a firm that specializes in workplace and employment matters, or that has specialist lawyers in that area.