Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

If the judge finds there is no winnable claim against Sloane, it will be dismissed. It shouldn't have any impact on the potential jury -- sometimes claimants are over inclusive in naming defendants. Dismissing some because they weren't actually involved in the alleged behavior is normal.

I think the extortion claims against Sloane will be dismissed for sure -- there is truly no basis for them. I think the judge might let the defamation claims stand but narrow it to just the one alleged incident (Sloane telling a reporter that the whole cast hates Justin) unless JB's side can show reason to connect Sloane to the California complaint and the NYT article that form the basis of his defamation claim against Lively. Perhaps the judge postponed that part of the ruling until more discovery is done. But the extortion claims against Sloane don't really make sense.

Though I actually think it's likely the extortion claims will be dismissed completely when Lively's team files their MTD. It's a very weak claim. It only makes sense as a possible defense against Lively's claims but I don't think it will survive as a cause of action for Baldoni.

[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 agree. I actually don’t imagine that Baldoni is a “bad guy.” I don’t think he deserves to be canceled or relegated to the annals of sexual harassers. I have more specific concerns about Blake and wouldn’t want to cast her in my movie based on those concerns (“not responding” well to female ADs would be a big red flag). But none of that really matters. It’s just my personal opinion on whose narrative seems more genuine to me and whose working style better matches my temperament.

Putting aside my personal feelings, I can admit that the professional response to extortion is probably not to pay the extortionist. Ideally you don’t want to put your business in a situation where it could be extorted in the first place. And you do that by taking all the steps that PP mentioned above (investigating all HR complaints, etc.). Maybe they did that here because her complaints were so counter to the brand of Wayfarer that possibly they thought it better to be extorted than to have those come out. Or maybe it was just inexperience in partnering with another, more powerful studio. In any case, mistakes were made. It’s hard not to acknowledge that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Maybe it was said, I hadn't heard it before but there is a lot out there! According to this person, the ICs were hired in the summer so long before Blake officially requested one in her letter but after all the May / June issues on set. They didn't say if the initial consultant was ever on set or just consulted via meeting.

I am surprised that a film with a theme of domestic violence and sex scenes wouldn't have hired one to be on set from the start but I don't know what is typical in the film industry

[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'm someone who tends to give Lively the benefit of the doubt more than others, but this could simply be due to the intimate scenes not having been scheduled until the back end of shooting. I'm definitely curious to hear more from the IC(s) though. It will be an important part of the case - did Lively really refuse meetings other than the initial one, did the IC really suggest added intimacy that Baldoni went along with, are Baldoni's handwritten notes accurate, what really happened with Ferrer, etc.

[Anonymous]

My background is management and employee relations. People complain to HR all the time on issues that aren’t actionable. They don’t like something a coworker or boss said but not liking something doesn’t make it a valid complaint. The employee relations manager will vet that complaint. Not every complaint will or should result in an investigation.

[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.

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.

I believe Liman said this in the hearing, so it will be in the transcript (which is not publicly available but which Sloane will have) and was reported on in news articles after the hearing.

[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.

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.

I saw that. I can't tell yet if it's a CYA move on their part or a lawyer trick. They've requested that Lively participate in the investigation which her lawyers of course declined due to the pending litigation, while indicating that launching an investigation two years after the first complaints were made is not in good faith.

But I agree it certainly highlights the fact that Wayfarer doesn't seemed to have followed any formal process to address complaints in a timely way. They seemed to rely on ad hoc conversations or assurances that certain behaviors would stop and that just strikes me as lazy.

Like even if you're talking about one of the non-sexual claims, like the allegations that Baldoni told Lively on multiple occasions that he was communicating with her dead father -- that's the kind of incident you'd want to document and be able to show what action was taken to address it. It's a small thing but also the kind of thing most people (and this most jurors) will view as inappropriate. You don't want to handle something like that casually without documentation of action taken because it creates a pattern of ignoring it failing to adequately address inappropriate behavior. When what you want to be able to show in court is that the company handled valid complaints promptly and professionally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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'm someone who tends to give Lively the benefit of the doubt more than others, but this could simply be due to the intimate scenes not having been scheduled until the back end of shooting. I'm definitely curious to hear more from the IC(s) though. It will be an important part of the case - did Lively really refuse meetings other than the initial one, did the IC really suggest added intimacy that Baldoni went along with, are Baldoni's handwritten notes accurate, what really happened with Ferrer, etc.

One of the ICs they hired (Lizzy Talbot) is a 'top gun' in the IC world. I wouldn't think they would have hired her (I am sure she is expensive) unless there was an issue to deal with. But that is pure speculation.

[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.

This doesn’t make any sense. Intimacy coordinators and aren’t usually hanging out on film sets. They come into either discuss the script or work on coordinating scenes and then be there on set when intimate scenes are filmed.

If a movie is shooting nine or 10 weeks and there’s only five days of people being nude or simulating sex, you wouldn’t need an intimacy coordinator hanging around the whole time.

We have proof that Baldoni hired an IC before shooting started. He sent Blake a text saying that he was really excited about her and wanted her to meet with Blake. I’m good for now. I’ll meet her on which is fine, but it’s a little disingenuous to act as if the IC was supposed to be there as full-time staff. It’s misinformation to say that she was not hired until July. He hired her in April.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This doesn’t make any sense. Intimacy coordinators and aren’t usually hanging out on film sets. They come into either discuss the script or work on coordinating scenes and then be there on set when intimate scenes are filmed.

If a movie is shooting nine or 10 weeks and there’s only five days of people being nude or simulating sex, you wouldn’t need an intimacy coordinator hanging around the whole time.

We have proof that Baldoni hired an IC before shooting started. He sent Blake a text saying that he was really excited about her and wanted her to meet with Blake. I’m good for now. I’ll meet her on which is fine, but it’s a little disingenuous to act as if the IC was supposed to be there as full-time staff. It’s misinformation to say that she was not hired until July. He hired her in April.

Sorry, got cut off, should have said Blake said I’m good for now - I’ll meet her on set.

[Anonymous]

Looking for more info on Jed Wallace, I came across this YouTube video, by someone with claimed experience in the PR industry.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gbQ15ELICSs&t=490s&pp=2AHqA5ACAQ%3D%3D

This also posts a redacted text from Baldini’s PR firm I had forgotten, which suggests there were 3 HR complaints, two of which involved Baldini’s “sexy” comment to Lively (complaints by Lively and someone else) with the other being Slate’s complaint re Heath.

[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.

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.

I believe Liman said this in the hearing, so it will be in the transcript (which is not publicly available but which Sloane will have) and was reported on in news articles after the hearing.

Yes, I saw this reported as well. Liman saying something to Freedman like "why did you do that" regarding the timeline. I think it's likely that it will be struck as "narrative" and removed from the complaint. I don't know if Liman would order it taken down from the website. He seems reluctant to try and dictate the actions of the attorneys to that degree, instead wanting to rely on rules of conduct. At this point there is no point in ordering taken down because it's been up so long that it's widely dispersed. No media outlet covering the case doesn't have a copy of it, for instance.

[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.

If the judge finds there is no winnable claim against Sloane, it will be dismissed. It shouldn't have any impact on the potential jury -- sometimes claimants are over inclusive in naming defendants. Dismissing some because they weren't actually involved in the alleged behavior is normal.

I think the extortion claims against Sloane will be dismissed for sure -- there is truly no basis for them. I think the judge might let the defamation claims stand but narrow it to just the one alleged incident (Sloane telling a reporter that the whole cast hates Justin) unless JB's side can show reason to connect Sloane to the California complaint and the NYT article that form the basis of his defamation claim against Lively. Perhaps the judge postponed that part of the ruling until more discovery is done. But the extortion claims against Sloane don't really make sense.

Though I actually think it's likely the extortion claims will be dismissed completely when Lively's team files their MTD. It's a very weak claim. It only makes sense as a possible defense against Lively's claims but I don't think it will survive as a cause of action for Baldoni.

I generally agree with you. The extortion claim is trying to make creative struggles into a tort but he can't prove anyone extorted anything of value from him. He doesn't even really allege that, and doesn't allege any threats from Sloane.

I thought Sloane's MTD was pretty strong but I'm not an expert in this area of law. The only statements they have directly from Sloane are the cast hates/doesn't like Justin (two different statements IIRC) and those can be dismissed as opinion. I actually thought the trickier one was a text from another reporter who said something like "she's saying the cast hates Justin and Blake was sexually assaulted" but it wasn't clear if that was referring to Sloane, or if it was referring to her what exactly she said, or if that was the reporter's subjective paraphrasing of what they read in the NYT article. That's the claim I could see surviving, because there's at least a triable issue of fact there, to determine whether Sloane defamed Baldoni by stating to the reporter that he sexually assaulted Blake, if she in fact did say that (and she has defenses for that too, including that the allegation was true, because sexual assault is very broad and includes unwanted touching).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This doesn’t make any sense. Intimacy coordinators and aren’t usually hanging out on film sets. They come into either discuss the script or work on coordinating scenes and then be there on set when intimate scenes are filmed.

If a movie is shooting nine or 10 weeks and there’s only five days of people being nude or simulating sex, you wouldn’t need an intimacy coordinator hanging around the whole time.

We have proof that Baldoni hired an IC before shooting started. He sent Blake a text saying that he was really excited about her and wanted her to meet with Blake. I’m good for now. I’ll meet her on which is fine, but it’s a little disingenuous to act as if the IC was supposed to be there as full-time staff. It’s misinformation to say that she was not hired until July. He hired her in April.

I didn't mean the IC was on the set all the time regardless of what was happening. What I understood was that there wasn't an IC on set during filming days in May / June (birth scene, dancing montage scene etc). They had an IC they had consulted with in April but from what this person said, the IC wasn't on set during filming in May / June. But that as of the hiatus, they had hired 2 IC (one might have been the previous consultant) to be far more involved and present on set going forward.

[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 thought I had read something similar, and that the IC change was basically a result of Lively’s complaints. Is that in Lively’s amended complaint maybe? I know I have read the details of that somewhere.