Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

PP here and yes, I've seen mention of this. I had never heard of Wallace until this case but apparently one way he maintains a low profile is by using his own bots to suppress discussion of him online. It's pretty fascinating. That's probably not illegal but it does demonstrate the power of what his company can do and is, at a minimum, creepy.

[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.

Eh. Freedman is showy and focused on winning the case with the public and not necessarily with the judge. Liman already questioned Freeman’s filing of the biased timeline as not being the type of doc allowed in court under the federal rules, seems like it will get struck. You guys hold him up as some god but he is questionable. And he has his own direct relationship with Jed Wallace which makes things worse.

[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?

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.

I wonder if, as a small company, they weren’t legally required to have HR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Eh. Freedman is showy and focused on winning the case with the public and not necessarily with the judge. Liman already questioned Freeman’s filing of the biased timeline as not being the type of doc allowed in court under the federal rules, seems like it will get struck. You guys hold him up as some god but he is questionable. And he has his own direct relationship with Jed Wallace which makes things worse.

If the case goes past initial discovery, I think they will need to hire proper trial lawyers anyway. Freedman doesn't actually do much trial work. He knows how to control the public narrative and also how to use early motions and discovery to bully/harass the other side into settlement. But I don't think it's working here and if I were Baldoni I'd be concerned about him, for instance, handling depositions of their own side or the pre-trial activities that will dictate things like jury instructions. I think he has really minimal experience with that.

I think a lot of claims are going to be dismissed within the next couple months. A lot of defendants are going to be dropped, maybe some plaintiffs as well. I think the landscape is going to look really different by May or June and then I think you might either see a settlement or Baldoni bringing in new representation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I wonder if, as a small company, they weren’t legally required to have HR.

They do have an HR person, she's listed on their website.

But to me it's not really about what is legally required. It's what is smart. I think it's dumb to run a company of any size without having figured out how employment disputes will be addressed. Even if it's just having the name of a good employment attorney you can call if needed. There are also HR consultants who will work with companies on an as needed basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Eh. Freedman is showy and focused on winning the case with the public and not necessarily with the judge. Liman already questioned Freeman’s filing of the biased timeline as not being the type of doc allowed in court under the federal rules, seems like it will get struck. You guys hold him up as some god but he is questionable. And he has his own direct relationship with Jed Wallace which makes things worse.

If the case goes past initial discovery, I think they will need to hire proper trial lawyers anyway. Freedman doesn't actually do much trial work. He knows how to control the public narrative and also how to use early motions and discovery to bully/harass the other side into settlement. But I don't think it's working here and if I were Baldoni I'd be concerned about him, for instance, handling depositions of their own side or the pre-trial activities that will dictate things like jury instructions. I think he has really minimal experience with that.

I think a lot of claims are going to be dismissed within the next couple months. A lot of defendants are going to be dropped, maybe some plaintiffs as well. I think the landscape is going to look really different by May or June and then I think you might either see a settlement or Baldoni bringing in new representation.

I think it’s more likely the judge will kick a few things down the road rather than dismiss (for example I don’t think Sloane’s motion to dismiss will be granted). These sorts of perceived wins or losses for either side could bias the jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

I wonder if, as a small company, they weren’t legally required to have HR.

Wayfarer has an HR department and an HR Director (at least there is a woman on Linked in who says that is her role on her profile and she also shows up on the Wayfarer Studios page). She too is Ba'hai. BL's complaints references multiple occasions when the Wayfarer HR was contacted with complaints in May / June.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Eh. Freedman is showy and focused on winning the case with the public and not necessarily with the judge. Liman already questioned Freeman’s filing of the biased timeline as not being the type of doc allowed in court under the federal rules, seems like it will get struck. You guys hold him up as some god but he is questionable. And he has his own direct relationship with Jed Wallace which makes things worse.

Did Liman? I saw that discussed I Leslie Sloane’s motion to dismiss. Her lawyers made a good argument and I agreed with them but I'm not aware of the judge making any comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Eh. Freedman is showy and focused on winning the case with the public and not necessarily with the judge. Liman already questioned Freeman’s filing of the biased timeline as not being the type of doc allowed in court under the federal rules, seems like it will get struck. You guys hold him up as some god but he is questionable. And he has his own direct relationship with Jed Wallace which makes things worse.

If the case goes past initial discovery, I think they will need to hire proper trial lawyers anyway. Freedman doesn't actually do much trial work. He knows how to control the public narrative and also how to use early motions and discovery to bully/harass the other side into settlement. But I don't think it's working here and if I were Baldoni I'd be concerned about him, for instance, handling depositions of their own side or the pre-trial activities that will dictate things like jury instructions. I think he has really minimal experience with that.

I think a lot of claims are going to be dismissed within the next couple months. A lot of defendants are going to be dropped, maybe some plaintiffs as well. I think the landscape is going to look really different by May or June and then I think you might either see a settlement or Baldoni bringing in new representation.

I think it’s more likely the judge will kick a few things down the road rather than dismiss (for example I don’t think Sloane’s motion to dismiss will be granted). These sorts of perceived wins or losses for either side could bias the jury.

Is it typical for the jury to be informed there were other defendants who were dropped for failure to state a claim?

[Anonymous]

I just did a control +F search.

HR comes up 23 times in BLs original complaint and 27 times in the amended complaint

HR comes up 1 time in JB's original complaint and 0 times in the amended complaint.

Interesting that JBs team has chosen not to discuss or respond to the HR complaints or their HR response or involvement (or lack there of)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Eh. Freedman is showy and focused on winning the case with the public and not necessarily with the judge. Liman already questioned Freeman’s filing of the biased timeline as not being the type of doc allowed in court under the federal rules, seems like it will get struck. You guys hold him up as some god but he is questionable. And he has his own direct relationship with Jed Wallace which makes things worse.

If the case goes past initial discovery, I think they will need to hire proper trial lawyers anyway. Freedman doesn't actually do much trial work. He knows how to control the public narrative and also how to use early motions and discovery to bully/harass the other side into settlement. But I don't think it's working here and if I were Baldoni I'd be concerned about him, for instance, handling depositions of their own side or the pre-trial activities that will dictate things like jury instructions. I think he has really minimal experience with that.

I think a lot of claims are going to be dismissed within the next couple months. A lot of defendants are going to be dropped, maybe some plaintiffs as well. I think the landscape is going to look really different by May or June and then I think you might either see a settlement or Baldoni bringing in new representation.

I think it’s more likely the judge will kick a few things down the road rather than dismiss (for example I don’t think Sloane’s motion to dismiss will be granted). These sorts of perceived wins or losses for either side could bias the jury.

Is it typical for the jury to be informed there were other defendants who were dropped for failure to state a claim?

Not a lawyer, but so much is playing out in the press it would be hard to get a juror who didn’t know.

[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?

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.

It's very telling that only now in 2025 has Wayfarer contacted an investigator to investigate the claims from two years ago. Seems like they dropped the ball.

[Anonymous]

This is solely hearsay from an anonymous online source who says they know about the set but according to them the Intimacy Coordinators were not hired to be on set until the hiatus (about July). That prior to the hiatus there was an IC who was hired as a consultant, but it was only after all the May / June complaints that they hired 2 ICs to work on the set and I believe they were present going forward once filming resumed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is solely hearsay from an anonymous online source who says they know about the set but according to them the Intimacy Coordinators were not hired to be on set until the hiatus (about July). That prior to the hiatus there was an IC who was hired as a consultant, but it was only after all the May / June complaints that they hired 2 ICs to work on the set and I believe they were present going forward once filming resumed.

I think that was said right? The original IC wasn't always on set. She was there to help set things the scenes up. Blake then wanted one on set at all times

[Anonymous]

Ryan and Blake = Ahab and Jezebel. Wicked and Godless.