Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we get back to Blake’s heavy handed attempts to block all discussion of the VanZan subpoena on TikTok?

The scariest part of all of this, which is what’s kept me engaged, is all the media manipulation. It’s really crazy to see how much influence they’ve been able to exert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The love scenes were all filmed after the hiatus and the 17 point list. So after Blake had complained repeatedly and gotten them to agree to having an IC on set whenever Blake interacted with Baldoni. So that means the IC okayed Ryan's presence during those scenes, and also could have spoken up if they thought it was inappropriate or if Baldoni expressed discomfort with it.

I don't see what is harassing about him being there, in any case. Intimate scenes are not sexy or titillating to film (or shouldn't be, though reportedly Baldoni was titillated by the sex scene he filmed of the young Lily and Atlas and expressed that to the actors). So having one of the actor's SO there doesn't seem like it should matter.

Emily Baldoni was also on set frequently, including days she was not filming her scene from the movie.

All assumptions that will come out in court, so we’ll just have to wait and see. It’s just as possible that RR threw his weight around and did whatever he wanted to do. They’ve shown time and again the rules don’t apply to them. What we’re pointing out here is the hypocrisy. Remember Blake added Sorowitz to her complaint and said he was on set during the birthing scene. First, he’s literally the one bankrolling the film and has a right to visit the set, certainly more of a right than RR. And as it turns out, he wasn’t there during the birthing scene but later that day, another one of Blake’s many lies.

She didn't lie -- he was on set that day, it was his first day on the set of the movie, and Blake found it to be an odd coincidence that he would show up to the set for the first time on the day where Heath and Baldoni tried to force her to do a scene that was not scripted as a nude scene, nude. That is what she alleged and that is all true. Wayfarer has replied he didn't show up until later in the day, which yes, would make the alleged coincidence moot, which is why they drop it from their amended complaint. But her complaint simply stated the truth as she knew it from her perspective and there were no lies there. She is not lying when she says that it bothered her to find out that Sorowitz was coming to set on the same day that she was being pressured to do unscripted nudity. That's her subjective experience, even if her understanding about why he was coming to set may have been false. It also doesn't change the fact that she was pressured to do unscripted nudity, something Baldoni's complaints have not even denied (they have only stated that ultimately she had a hospital gown over her top have and was wearing underwear in the scene, which Baldoni calls "full clothed" and Livley calls "simulated partial nudity").

No lies detected.

Her initial complaint alleged he was present when the scene was filmed. He wasn’t. Since she possesses the gift of sight, it was yet another lie.

And yet again, you forgot the pregnancy suit, which she doesn’t mention, but of course would be wearing under any scenario.

She believe he was present because she'd seen the notice that he would be on set that day. She didn't see him present because she was in the middle of shooting the scene and not making eye contact with every single person on set. She also alleges the set was insufficiently closed and felt chaotic to her (again, subjective description of her experience) so it is not unreasonable for her to assume that someone who had been announced on the schedule as present was there even if she had not seen him.

Not lies. A subjective description of how she experienced that shoot.

So she lied. An assumption is not a clear objective fact. She did not see him there and lied that she did. Thank you. None of you know what the hell you're talking about.

Nope. Here is what Lively's original complaint says (and this is the only think it says about Sarowitz with regards to the birth scene):

"Among the non-essential persons present that day was Wayfarer co- Chairman Mr. Sarowitz, who flew in for one of his few set visits."

That's it. It does not say "I saw Mr. Sarowitz on the set with my own eyes." It says that he was present on the set that day, which he was, and which Lively only knew because his set visit was on the official schedule. She erroneously thought this meant he was present for the birth scene, which bothered her because of everything else that happened related to the birth scene. But she did not lie.

lol. A jury will see right through this con. But best of luck! If there were any brain cells between the two of these uneducated flunky scammers they'd settle this ASAP.

+1 she’s a pathological liar. She just lied on Seth Meyers about something as benign as her children’s birthdays. It’s weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we get back to Blake’s heavy handed attempts to block all discussion of the VanZan subpoena on TikTok?

The scariest part of all of this, which is what’s kept me engaged, is all the media manipulation. It’s really crazy to see how much influence they’ve been able to exert.

There really mist be something there (either with the subpoena itself or the VanZan entity more broadly) for them to be going to such lengths to squash discussion of it. And of course such efforts only draw more scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we get back to Blake’s heavy handed attempts to block all discussion of the VanZan subpoena on TikTok?

The scariest part of all of this, which is what’s kept me engaged, is all the media manipulation. It’s really crazy to see how much influence they’ve been able to exert.

It reveals how controlled and fake legacy newsrooms are and probably always have been. It's why people don't trust them anymore and seek out more independent sources and social media voices. These cut and dry falsehoods were published by an alleged "award winning" super serious (! ) journalist in the allegedly highly esteemed NY Times. It's nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The love scenes were all filmed after the hiatus and the 17 point list. So after Blake had complained repeatedly and gotten them to agree to having an IC on set whenever Blake interacted with Baldoni. So that means the IC okayed Ryan's presence during those scenes, and also could have spoken up if they thought it was inappropriate or if Baldoni expressed discomfort with it.

I don't see what is harassing about him being there, in any case. Intimate scenes are not sexy or titillating to film (or shouldn't be, though reportedly Baldoni was titillated by the sex scene he filmed of the young Lily and Atlas and expressed that to the actors). So having one of the actor's SO there doesn't seem like it should matter.

Emily Baldoni was also on set frequently, including days she was not filming her scene from the movie.

All assumptions that will come out in court, so we’ll just have to wait and see. It’s just as possible that RR threw his weight around and did whatever he wanted to do. They’ve shown time and again the rules don’t apply to them. What we’re pointing out here is the hypocrisy. Remember Blake added Sorowitz to her complaint and said he was on set during the birthing scene. First, he’s literally the one bankrolling the film and has a right to visit the set, certainly more of a right than RR. And as it turns out, he wasn’t there during the birthing scene but later that day, another one of Blake’s many lies.

She didn't lie -- he was on set that day, it was his first day on the set of the movie, and Blake found it to be an odd coincidence that he would show up to the set for the first time on the day where Heath and Baldoni tried to force her to do a scene that was not scripted as a nude scene, nude. That is what she alleged and that is all true. Wayfarer has replied he didn't show up until later in the day, which yes, would make the alleged coincidence moot, which is why they drop it from their amended complaint. But her complaint simply stated the truth as she knew it from her perspective and there were no lies there. She is not lying when she says that it bothered her to find out that Sorowitz was coming to set on the same day that she was being pressured to do unscripted nudity. That's her subjective experience, even if her understanding about why he was coming to set may have been false. It also doesn't change the fact that she was pressured to do unscripted nudity, something Baldoni's complaints have not even denied (they have only stated that ultimately she had a hospital gown over her top have and was wearing underwear in the scene, which Baldoni calls "full clothed" and Livley calls "simulated partial nudity").

No lies detected.

Her initial complaint alleged he was present when the scene was filmed. He wasn’t. Since she possesses the gift of sight, it was yet another lie.

And yet again, you forgot the pregnancy suit, which she doesn’t mention, but of course would be wearing under any scenario.

She believe he was present because she'd seen the notice that he would be on set that day. She didn't see him present because she was in the middle of shooting the scene and not making eye contact with every single person on set. She also alleges the set was insufficiently closed and felt chaotic to her (again, subjective description of her experience) so it is not unreasonable for her to assume that someone who had been announced on the schedule as present was there even if she had not seen him.

Not lies. A subjective description of how she experienced that shoot.

So she lied. An assumption is not a clear objective fact. She did not see him there and lied that she did. Thank you. None of you know what the hell you're talking about.

Nope. Here is what Lively's original complaint says (and this is the only think it says about Sarowitz with regards to the birth scene):

"Among the non-essential persons present that day was Wayfarer co- Chairman Mr. Sarowitz, who flew in for one of his few set visits."

That's it. It does not say "I saw Mr. Sarowitz on the set with my own eyes." It says that he was present on the set that day, which he was, and which Lively only knew because his set visit was on the official schedule. She erroneously thought this meant he was present for the birth scene, which bothered her because of everything else that happened related to the birth scene. But she did not lie.

lol. A jury will see right through this con. But best of luck! If there were any brain cells between the two of these uneducated flunky scammers they'd settle this ASAP.

A jury likely won't even learn of this discrepancy because the parties will be forced to agree to certain facts prior to trial, and one of the facts will be whether Sarowitz was present during the birth scene or not. If it is established he was not, then it will not be addressed during trial at all and the judge will not allow it to be raised. Not even the fact that Lively erroneously believed he was present. It is not uncommon for initial complaints to have small factual errors, and for these errors to be addressed and dismissed well before trial. It is highly unlikely this would be permitted as grounds for impeachment during a cross examination of Lively, especially because Lively will not have introduced it during trial. So it would go like this:

[Livley presents case that does not allege Sarowitz was there during the birth scene]
Freedman: Did you or did you not erroneously believe that Sarowitz was present during the birth scene?
Lively: I did.
Freedman: But he was not there, was he?
Lively: Correct, I have since found out he was not there for the filming of the birth scene.
Freedman: How can we believe anything you say then?!?!?!
Lively's lawyer (on redirect): Ms. Lively, why did you think Mr. Sarowitz was on set during that scene?
Lively: The schedule for the day stated that Mr. Sarowitz would be visiting that set that day.
Lively's lawyer: And what was your state of mind at the time of the scene, believing that Mr. Sarowitz was there?
Lively: I felt violated, because I'd been pressured to be naked in the scene and was still wearing less clothes than I felt was appropriate, and the set felt chaotic to me. I thought Mr. Sarowitz was part of that chaos and it contributed to me feeling exposed and exploited in that moment.

It's a non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The love scenes were all filmed after the hiatus and the 17 point list. So after Blake had complained repeatedly and gotten them to agree to having an IC on set whenever Blake interacted with Baldoni. So that means the IC okayed Ryan's presence during those scenes, and also could have spoken up if they thought it was inappropriate or if Baldoni expressed discomfort with it.

I don't see what is harassing about him being there, in any case. Intimate scenes are not sexy or titillating to film (or shouldn't be, though reportedly Baldoni was titillated by the sex scene he filmed of the young Lily and Atlas and expressed that to the actors). So having one of the actor's SO there doesn't seem like it should matter.

Emily Baldoni was also on set frequently, including days she was not filming her scene from the movie.

All assumptions that will come out in court, so we’ll just have to wait and see. It’s just as possible that RR threw his weight around and did whatever he wanted to do. They’ve shown time and again the rules don’t apply to them. What we’re pointing out here is the hypocrisy. Remember Blake added Sorowitz to her complaint and said he was on set during the birthing scene. First, he’s literally the one bankrolling the film and has a right to visit the set, certainly more of a right than RR. And as it turns out, he wasn’t there during the birthing scene but later that day, another one of Blake’s many lies.

She didn't lie -- he was on set that day, it was his first day on the set of the movie, and Blake found it to be an odd coincidence that he would show up to the set for the first time on the day where Heath and Baldoni tried to force her to do a scene that was not scripted as a nude scene, nude. That is what she alleged and that is all true. Wayfarer has replied he didn't show up until later in the day, which yes, would make the alleged coincidence moot, which is why they drop it from their amended complaint. But her complaint simply stated the truth as she knew it from her perspective and there were no lies there. She is not lying when she says that it bothered her to find out that Sorowitz was coming to set on the same day that she was being pressured to do unscripted nudity. That's her subjective experience, even if her understanding about why he was coming to set may have been false. It also doesn't change the fact that she was pressured to do unscripted nudity, something Baldoni's complaints have not even denied (they have only stated that ultimately she had a hospital gown over her top have and was wearing underwear in the scene, which Baldoni calls "full clothed" and Livley calls "simulated partial nudity").

No lies detected.

Her initial complaint alleged he was present when the scene was filmed. He wasn’t. Since she possesses the gift of sight, it was yet another lie.

And yet again, you forgot the pregnancy suit, which she doesn’t mention, but of course would be wearing under any scenario.

She believe he was present because she'd seen the notice that he would be on set that day. She didn't see him present because she was in the middle of shooting the scene and not making eye contact with every single person on set. She also alleges the set was insufficiently closed and felt chaotic to her (again, subjective description of her experience) so it is not unreasonable for her to assume that someone who had been announced on the schedule as present was there even if she had not seen him.

Not lies. A subjective description of how she experienced that shoot.

Let’s just say Blake’s “perspective” is frequently provably false. She’s either a liar or suffering from a chronic mental health condition in which she often perceives reality to be different from what it actually is. Either way, not Justin’s problem. You’ve also completely missed the point, which is that if Blake feels it’s harassment for SS to be on set (setting aside for now the fact that she was wrong) how is it ok for RR?

Yes this but we aren’t allowed to discuss the psychological condition that would cause such behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The love scenes were all filmed after the hiatus and the 17 point list. So after Blake had complained repeatedly and gotten them to agree to having an IC on set whenever Blake interacted with Baldoni. So that means the IC okayed Ryan's presence during those scenes, and also could have spoken up if they thought it was inappropriate or if Baldoni expressed discomfort with it.

I don't see what is harassing about him being there, in any case. Intimate scenes are not sexy or titillating to film (or shouldn't be, though reportedly Baldoni was titillated by the sex scene he filmed of the young Lily and Atlas and expressed that to the actors). So having one of the actor's SO there doesn't seem like it should matter.

Emily Baldoni was also on set frequently, including days she was not filming her scene from the movie.

All assumptions that will come out in court, so we’ll just have to wait and see. It’s just as possible that RR threw his weight around and did whatever he wanted to do. They’ve shown time and again the rules don’t apply to them. What we’re pointing out here is the hypocrisy. Remember Blake added Sorowitz to her complaint and said he was on set during the birthing scene. First, he’s literally the one bankrolling the film and has a right to visit the set, certainly more of a right than RR. And as it turns out, he wasn’t there during the birthing scene but later that day, another one of Blake’s many lies.

She didn't lie -- he was on set that day, it was his first day on the set of the movie, and Blake found it to be an odd coincidence that he would show up to the set for the first time on the day where Heath and Baldoni tried to force her to do a scene that was not scripted as a nude scene, nude. That is what she alleged and that is all true. Wayfarer has replied he didn't show up until later in the day, which yes, would make the alleged coincidence moot, which is why they drop it from their amended complaint. But her complaint simply stated the truth as she knew it from her perspective and there were no lies there. She is not lying when she says that it bothered her to find out that Sorowitz was coming to set on the same day that she was being pressured to do unscripted nudity. That's her subjective experience, even if her understanding about why he was coming to set may have been false. It also doesn't change the fact that she was pressured to do unscripted nudity, something Baldoni's complaints have not even denied (they have only stated that ultimately she had a hospital gown over her top have and was wearing underwear in the scene, which Baldoni calls "full clothed" and Livley calls "simulated partial nudity").

No lies detected.

Her initial complaint alleged he was present when the scene was filmed. He wasn’t. Since she possesses the gift of sight, it was yet another lie.

And yet again, you forgot the pregnancy suit, which she doesn’t mention, but of course would be wearing under any scenario.

She believe he was present because she'd seen the notice that he would be on set that day. She didn't see him present because she was in the middle of shooting the scene and not making eye contact with every single person on set. She also alleges the set was insufficiently closed and felt chaotic to her (again, subjective description of her experience) so it is not unreasonable for her to assume that someone who had been announced on the schedule as present was there even if she had not seen him.

Not lies. A subjective description of how she experienced that shoot.

So she lied. An assumption is not a clear objective fact. She did not see him there and lied that she did. Thank you. None of you know what the hell you're talking about.

Nope. Here is what Lively's original complaint says (and this is the only think it says about Sarowitz with regards to the birth scene):

"Among the non-essential persons present that day was Wayfarer co- Chairman Mr. Sarowitz, who flew in for one of his few set visits."

That's it. It does not say "I saw Mr. Sarowitz on the set with my own eyes." It says that he was present on the set that day, which he was, and which Lively only knew because his set visit was on the official schedule. She erroneously thought this meant he was present for the birth scene, which bothered her because of everything else that happened related to the birth scene. But she did not lie.

lol. A jury will see right through this con. But best of luck! If there were any brain cells between the two of these uneducated flunky scammers they'd settle this ASAP.

A jury likely won't even learn of this discrepancy because the parties will be forced to agree to certain facts prior to trial, and one of the facts will be whether Sarowitz was present during the birth scene or not. If it is established he was not, then it will not be addressed during trial at all and the judge will not allow it to be raised. Not even the fact that Lively erroneously believed he was present. It is not uncommon for initial complaints to have small factual errors, and for these errors to be addressed and dismissed well before trial. It is highly unlikely this would be permitted as grounds for impeachment during a cross examination of Lively, especially because Lively will not have introduced it during trial. So it would go like this:

[Livley presents case that does not allege Sarowitz was there during the birth scene]
Freedman: Did you or did you not erroneously believe that Sarowitz was present during the birth scene?
Lively: I did.
Freedman: But he was not there, was he?
Lively: Correct, I have since found out he was not there for the filming of the birth scene.
Freedman: How can we believe anything you say then?!?!?!
Lively's lawyer (on redirect): Ms. Lively, why did you think Mr. Sarowitz was on set during that scene?
Lively: The schedule for the day stated that Mr. Sarowitz would be visiting that set that day.
Lively's lawyer: And what was your state of mind at the time of the scene, believing that Mr. Sarowitz was there?
Lively: I felt violated, because I'd been pressured to be naked in the scene and was still wearing less clothes than I felt was appropriate, and the set felt chaotic to me. I thought Mr. Sarowitz was part of that chaos and it contributed to me feeling exposed and exploited in that moment.

It's a non-issue.

Yes she couldn’t think straight because she only was wearing a pregnancy suit, briefs and hospital gown. Totally believable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we get back to Blake’s heavy handed attempts to block all discussion of the VanZan subpoena on TikTok?

The scariest part of all of this, which is what’s kept me engaged, is all the media manipulation. It’s really crazy to see how much influence they’ve been able to exert.

It reveals how controlled and fake legacy newsrooms are and probably always have been. It's why people don't trust them anymore and seek out more independent sources and social media voices. These cut and dry falsehoods were published by an alleged "award winning" super serious (! ) journalist in the allegedly highly esteemed NY Times. It's nuts.

I still can’t believe how superficial Twohey’s investigation of the case was. How far the Times has fallen between her and nepo baby Haberman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the problem with that is she also needs to show it wasn’t mutual, which she won’t be able to do because she participated in and even initiated a lot of the conversations she now wants to call SH

Guess what? Her calling herself a ball buster doesn’t mean he didn’t sexually harass her. Your weird addition to the order of proof for sexual harassment — proving it “wasn’t mutual” — that isn’t a thing, but if it were I’m pretty sure she can show she wasn’t on board with with being nude for the birth scene or the additional sex scenes he wanted to film of her climaxing etc. Nor does her calling herself a “ball buster” mean he didn’t run a smear campaign against her. And his texts basically admit the smear campaign. His texts are like, hey guys, shouldn’t we be smearing a little harder? And are we sure we’re smearing her in a way where we won’t get caught?

So your boy may still have some problems, not least of which is getting his own MIA amended complaint approved in a way where the claims stick because the judge has indicated that as written there are enormous problems with it, and moreover his biggest fish worth the most in his potential recovery, the NYT, may swim away entirely.

We’ll see what happens.

This is how we can tell you didn't read the exculpatory evidence because otherwise you would have known the full context of text messages were omitted from the NYT article and Justin had actually texted his PR team he didn't want to slander her. None of know what you're talking about.

Saying he didn't want to slander her is not exculpatory. He isn't accused of slander -- he's accused of a retaliatory PR campaign. Even if everything they posted online was true or couched as opinion (so not slander), by spreading negative publicity about an employee who had brought credible SH allegations, they were engaging in retaliatory behavior. Especially when there are a number of texts where Justin makes it clear the goal of the campaign is to discredit Lively should she speak publicly about her allegations.

Lively didn't bring sexual harassment allegations until December when she filed the lawsuit. Sony has denied there were any sexual harassment complaints filed to their HR. Your allegation that Justin was aware of the fact that she was going to file a sexual harassment complaint and thus hire a PR firm to discredit her specifically before it came out is literally baseless and a complete distortion of the facts and timelines of the case.

She made multiple complaints about Baldoni's and Heath's behavior, to Wayfarer and Sony, before the hiatus. These are detailed in both their complaints. She did not go through formal channels to file a "sexual harassment complaint" because (1) she wanted to handle it less confrontationally in order to protect the production, and (2) there were structural problems that made a more formal complaint possible -- Wayfarer had inadequate HR resources and Sony, which had a more formal HR process, kept kicking things back to Wayfarer. But Lively repeatedly raised concerns about everything she alleges in her lawsuit -- Baldoni asking her trainer about her weight, the unscripted kissing in scenes, the proposed nudity in the birth scene, Heath showing her the birth video, etc. None of this came as a surprise to Baldoni or Heath when it was raised again later in the 17 point list -- they knew she was unhappy about that stuff and had had discussions with her and with Sony about it.

That's not Justin or the studio's problem that she didn't take the proper protocol and issue a sexual harassment complaint to Sony and/or SAG-AFTRA as soon as she felt he was sexually harassing her. Had she done that, her case would have been rock solid. She's under fire because she has left out pertinent details and fabricated quotes by Baldoni and others on a number of occasions in her amended complaint that put the validity of her case into question. She is a grown woman and veteran of the industry and at this conjecture post me-too, there are clear conduct and behavioral boundaries that every cast member is subject to and is aware of what to do when those lines are crossed. Especially the lead stars of the film. She made a plethora of inappropriate sexual jokes, innuendos, comments, physical moves, and threats against Baldoni that any reasonable person could argue were in equal value to the ones she claims he made against her and yet, he did not file a sexual harassment suit or complaint. This is their problem and now the courts will decide and weigh in all of their conduct and exchanges to evaluate if it had malice.

Where is the proof that Lively has stated that 1, she wanted to handle it less confrontationally in order to protect the production and 2, stated that there were structural problems that made a formal complaint possible (I think you meant impossible). Show me where she specifically stated these two key issues about sexual harassment specifically. Sony has again denied she filed a sexual harassment complain to HR. Lively did not issue a sexual harassment allegation until the lawsuit in December.

What Wayfarer should have done, and what a competent company would do, is involve HR as soon as it was clear Lively was raising these concerns, and create a formal process to address discomfort and prevent any future issues moving forward. That is what Sony would have done, for instance, if this happened on the set of a movie they were actually producing as the producing studio. Sony has lots of lawyers and HR professionals who would have investigated and laid out a framework for moving forward. Wayfarer blew it off, figured Blake would get over it, and made no changes to their operations. And then during the hiatus when Blake became so stressed about returning to set and having to film all her intimate scenes with people who had repeatedly blown off her concerns specifically about how they handled intimacy and nudity on set, she essentially forced Wayfarer to do what they should have done from the jump and commit to certain protections on the set, and also forced Sony to get more involved to protect the production and actors.

To say that's not a "credibly SH allegation" is bizarre to me. You can't avoid a credible allegation by just refusing to take an employee's *repeated* complaints about behavior related to sex and gender in the workplace seriously. And it wasn't even just Blake! At least one other actress on the set vocally complained about gendered or sexist comments by Heath. So you have what appears to be a pattern of behavior that is making multiple women on the set uncomfortable to the point of raising concerns with Sony or directly with Heath and Baldoni, and Wayfarer at no point initiated an HR investigation into the incidents to try and address the issues. In fact, Wayfarer didn't initiate an investigation until 2025, when they hired a law firm to conduct an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment on the set of the movie, likely because they knew the total absence of any action by the company to look into these allegations looks really, really bad for their defense against Blake's claims.

That's not what I said. The burden of proof is on her to prove she was a victim of pervasive workplace sexual harassment. And her allegations so far, have not met the threshold. You are trying to include unrelated complaints by another actress about another person on set to the sexual harassment case against Baldoni and it's comically absurd. Gendered and sexist comments doesn't = sexual harassment and neither does it rise to the threshold of pervasive workplace sexual harassment. If Lively felt that Wayfarer was so incompetent and fostered such an unsafe work environment, she could have completely severed ties with the production and never returned. What we do know is she that was enjoying the production and the cast and crew (including Justin), until he rebuffed some of her intiial demands. As time moved forward, she drafted a list of demands that they all agreed to before resuming filming, and she had no issues after the fact.

The idea that Baldoni and Wayfarer didn't know about the SH allegations until Blake filed her lawsuit is ludicrous. They not only knew, there are multiple texts between Baldoni and Abel where he expresses concern about the allegations being made public. There are even texts between Abel and others where she expresses concern about how the allegations could affect Baldoni's reputation or the film. These texts date as far back as January 2024 when the movie was still in production. They knew. They knew and did nothing to address it, but gosh they sure were busy little bees when it came to making sure no one would believe Blake if she came forward, by trashing her rep online via TAG and JW.

I would love to see the text message exchanges between Baldoni and Abel that you have that show he expressed concern about sexual harassment allegations being made. I would also love to see the dates presented on the text messages about the sexual harassment you have because that was a point of contention for his NYT lawsuit with the dates being redacted. It's interesting in February Blake was shut down by Judge Liman from obtaining 2 years worth of text messages and phone records she was trying to subpoena from Baldoni. Further cementing the argument that her team nor the NYT's had all the text messages and evidence they claimed they did.

It is 100% their problem.

If you run a business, and an employee starts making complaints about your behavior or another employee's behavior, and the complaints involve sexual comments or situations, or gendered or sexist comments, the onus is on YOU to investigate those complaints and address them. The employee is not actually required to say "this is sexual harassment" in order to preserve a right to sue later. And in fact, the first few complaints may not even constitute sexual harassment because if it's not quid pro quo, and if the behavior stopped after the first or second incident, it's unlikely it would rise to the level of "severe and pervasive" needed for a hostile work environment claim.

But the employer has a duty to look into the incidents and address them. Even if the employee doesn't say "this is sexual harassment." This is why employers generally have HR staff who are well versed in SH and other forms of workplace harassment who can step in and investigate and then suggest a plan for going forward that will prevent a couple incidents from becoming SH if the incidents continue or worsen. This is one of the main purposes of HR.

So yes, it is very much Justin's and Jamey's and Wayfarer's problem that after multiple complaints from Blake concerning issues that could give rise to an SH claim (including Justin requesting Blake's weight from her trainer, and Blake complaining about Jamey looking at her when she was topless/nursing/pumping, both of which happened either in pre-production or very early in filming and both of which Wayfarer was fully aware of) they failed to involve HR, conduct and investigation, and take steps to address any issues. Instead, they tried to placate Blake with apologies/promises, and then proceeded to pressure her to do unscripted nudity. And then Justin told Jamey to go show Blake Jamey's wife's birth video, which is just a weird thing to do at work in general, but especially weird when you remember that at this point, Blake had expressed multiple complaints about Justina and Jamey violating boundaries.

Their failure to involve HR very early on when it was clear there was some kind of boundary/miscommunication issue between Blake and Justin and possibly between Blake and Jamey was stupid, and potentially, a massive liability.

This is a film production. There are unions the actors are represented by who are responsible for ensuring their clients are in a safe workplace. Lively did not go to through her union or filed a formal HR complaint to Sony or Wayfarer as she was supposed to. It's not their responsibility to invoke HR when the employee did not report a formal HR complaint. This is the reality for nearly all working companies in America. Plenty of employees make complaints about sexist, religious, political, or unpalatable jokes or comments made towards them or another person or group and none of these complaints are taken seriously unless they make a formal complaint to HR so they can begin a proper investigation. Lively did not do this and thus, no HR investigation commenced. Wayfarer went above and beyond accommodating Lively's numerous request and demands. And when everyone agreed to her final 17 point demand, she went back to work without issue as stated in the suit. They listened, took action, and performed to her standard. This solidifies the fact that she felt safe enough to continue working there.

Now she's doubling back and making insidious claims to sexual harassment and a retaliatory hate campaign once she received widespread backlash for her tone deaf marketing over the film and her subsequent hair and drink line failures. She admitted to interviewers she had never had the experiences Lily Bloom had and neither did she conceive the "Grab your florals" marketing pitch. If her argument had any merit, she should be suing Sony for the backlash and her abysmal sales. She wanted the narrative changed so she's suing him to destroy his reputation and career. Because she isn't that smart, she didn't realize he has all the original dailies and audio + the text messages and email exchanges to refute many of her claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The love scenes were all filmed after the hiatus and the 17 point list. So after Blake had complained repeatedly and gotten them to agree to having an IC on set whenever Blake interacted with Baldoni. So that means the IC okayed Ryan's presence during those scenes, and also could have spoken up if they thought it was inappropriate or if Baldoni expressed discomfort with it.

I don't see what is harassing about him being there, in any case. Intimate scenes are not sexy or titillating to film (or shouldn't be, though reportedly Baldoni was titillated by the sex scene he filmed of the young Lily and Atlas and expressed that to the actors). So having one of the actor's SO there doesn't seem like it should matter.

Emily Baldoni was also on set frequently, including days she was not filming her scene from the movie.

All assumptions that will come out in court, so we’ll just have to wait and see. It’s just as possible that RR threw his weight around and did whatever he wanted to do. They’ve shown time and again the rules don’t apply to them. What we’re pointing out here is the hypocrisy. Remember Blake added Sorowitz to her complaint and said he was on set during the birthing scene. First, he’s literally the one bankrolling the film and has a right to visit the set, certainly more of a right than RR. And as it turns out, he wasn’t there during the birthing scene but later that day, another one of Blake’s many lies.

She didn't lie -- he was on set that day, it was his first day on the set of the movie, and Blake found it to be an odd coincidence that he would show up to the set for the first time on the day where Heath and Baldoni tried to force her to do a scene that was not scripted as a nude scene, nude. That is what she alleged and that is all true. Wayfarer has replied he didn't show up until later in the day, which yes, would make the alleged coincidence moot, which is why they drop it from their amended complaint. But her complaint simply stated the truth as she knew it from her perspective and there were no lies there. She is not lying when she says that it bothered her to find out that Sorowitz was coming to set on the same day that she was being pressured to do unscripted nudity. That's her subjective experience, even if her understanding about why he was coming to set may have been false. It also doesn't change the fact that she was pressured to do unscripted nudity, something Baldoni's complaints have not even denied (they have only stated that ultimately she had a hospital gown over her top have and was wearing underwear in the scene, which Baldoni calls "full clothed" and Livley calls "simulated partial nudity").

No lies detected.

Her initial complaint alleged he was present when the scene was filmed. He wasn’t. Since she possesses the gift of sight, it was yet another lie.

And yet again, you forgot the pregnancy suit, which she doesn’t mention, but of course would be wearing under any scenario.

She believe he was present because she'd seen the notice that he would be on set that day. She didn't see him present because she was in the middle of shooting the scene and not making eye contact with every single person on set. She also alleges the set was insufficiently closed and felt chaotic to her (again, subjective description of her experience) so it is not unreasonable for her to assume that someone who had been announced on the schedule as present was there even if she had not seen him.

Not lies. A subjective description of how she experienced that shoot.

So she lied. An assumption is not a clear objective fact. She did not see him there and lied that she did. Thank you. None of you know what the hell you're talking about.

Nope. Here is what Lively's original complaint says (and this is the only think it says about Sarowitz with regards to the birth scene):

"Among the non-essential persons present that day was Wayfarer co- Chairman Mr. Sarowitz, who flew in for one of his few set visits."

That's it. It does not say "I saw Mr. Sarowitz on the set with my own eyes." It says that he was present on the set that day, which he was, and which Lively only knew because his set visit was on the official schedule. She erroneously thought this meant he was present for the birth scene, which bothered her because of everything else that happened related to the birth scene. But she did not lie.

You are moving the goalpost. First you said she saw him. Then you said she thought or made an assumption. Then you said she made a "subjective description". You can't "think" you saw someone that wasn't there. You either saw him or you did not. This was one of the major reasons he was added to her amended complaint. She's going to be cooked under direct examination for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The love scenes were all filmed after the hiatus and the 17 point list. So after Blake had complained repeatedly and gotten them to agree to having an IC on set whenever Blake interacted with Baldoni. So that means the IC okayed Ryan's presence during those scenes, and also could have spoken up if they thought it was inappropriate or if Baldoni expressed discomfort with it.

I don't see what is harassing about him being there, in any case. Intimate scenes are not sexy or titillating to film (or shouldn't be, though reportedly Baldoni was titillated by the sex scene he filmed of the young Lily and Atlas and expressed that to the actors). So having one of the actor's SO there doesn't seem like it should matter.

Emily Baldoni was also on set frequently, including days she was not filming her scene from the movie.

All assumptions that will come out in court, so we’ll just have to wait and see. It’s just as possible that RR threw his weight around and did whatever he wanted to do. They’ve shown time and again the rules don’t apply to them. What we’re pointing out here is the hypocrisy. Remember Blake added Sorowitz to her complaint and said he was on set during the birthing scene. First, he’s literally the one bankrolling the film and has a right to visit the set, certainly more of a right than RR. And as it turns out, he wasn’t there during the birthing scene but later that day, another one of Blake’s many lies.

She didn't lie -- he was on set that day, it was his first day on the set of the movie, and Blake found it to be an odd coincidence that he would show up to the set for the first time on the day where Heath and Baldoni tried to force her to do a scene that was not scripted as a nude scene, nude. That is what she alleged and that is all true. Wayfarer has replied he didn't show up until later in the day, which yes, would make the alleged coincidence moot, which is why they drop it from their amended complaint. But her complaint simply stated the truth as she knew it from her perspective and there were no lies there. She is not lying when she says that it bothered her to find out that Sorowitz was coming to set on the same day that she was being pressured to do unscripted nudity. That's her subjective experience, even if her understanding about why he was coming to set may have been false. It also doesn't change the fact that she was pressured to do unscripted nudity, something Baldoni's complaints have not even denied (they have only stated that ultimately she had a hospital gown over her top have and was wearing underwear in the scene, which Baldoni calls "full clothed" and Livley calls "simulated partial nudity").

No lies detected.

Her initial complaint alleged he was present when the scene was filmed. He wasn’t. Since she possesses the gift of sight, it was yet another lie.

And yet again, you forgot the pregnancy suit, which she doesn’t mention, but of course would be wearing under any scenario.

She believe he was present because she'd seen the notice that he would be on set that day. She didn't see him present because she was in the middle of shooting the scene and not making eye contact with every single person on set. She also alleges the set was insufficiently closed and felt chaotic to her (again, subjective description of her experience) so it is not unreasonable for her to assume that someone who had been announced on the schedule as present was there even if she had not seen him.

Not lies. A subjective description of how she experienced that shoot.

So she lied. An assumption is not a clear objective fact. She did not see him there and lied that she did. Thank you. None of you know what the hell you're talking about.

Nope. Here is what Lively's original complaint says (and this is the only think it says about Sarowitz with regards to the birth scene):

"Among the non-essential persons present that day was Wayfarer co- Chairman Mr. Sarowitz, who flew in for one of his few set visits."

That's it. It does not say "I saw Mr. Sarowitz on the set with my own eyes." It says that he was present on the set that day, which he was, and which Lively only knew because his set visit was on the official schedule. She erroneously thought this meant he was present for the birth scene, which bothered her because of everything else that happened related to the birth scene. But she did not lie.

You are moving the goalpost. First you said she saw him. Then you said she thought or made an assumption. Then you said she made a "subjective description". You can't "think" you saw someone that wasn't there. You either saw him or you did not. This was one of the major reasons he was added to her amended complaint. She's going to be cooked under direct examination for this.

I never said she saw him. I always said that she assumed he was there because he was on the schedule for the day.

She also never said she saw him. Her complaint said he was on set that day, which he was, and that is all it says. No lies.

[Anonymous]

Ugh, this conversation has been dragged out way too long. In summary: She was clearly wrong that he was on set. She had a reasonable explanation for thinking he was. This is just not a big deal at all. The jury will never hear anything about it, because she won't allege that he was there in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And the problem with that is she also needs to show it wasn’t mutual, which she won’t be able to do because she participated in and even initiated a lot of the conversations she now wants to call SH

Guess what? Her calling herself a ball buster doesn’t mean he didn’t sexually harass her. Your weird addition to the order of proof for sexual harassment — proving it “wasn’t mutual” — that isn’t a thing, but if it were I’m pretty sure she can show she wasn’t on board with with being nude for the birth scene or the additional sex scenes he wanted to film of her climaxing etc. Nor does her calling herself a “ball buster” mean he didn’t run a smear campaign against her. And his texts basically admit the smear campaign. His texts are like, hey guys, shouldn’t we be smearing a little harder? And are we sure we’re smearing her in a way where we won’t get caught?

So your boy may still have some problems, not least of which is getting his own MIA amended complaint approved in a way where the claims stick because the judge has indicated that as written there are enormous problems with it, and moreover his biggest fish worth the most in his potential recovery, the NYT, may swim away entirely.

We’ll see what happens.

This is how we can tell you didn't read the exculpatory evidence because otherwise you would have known the full context of text messages were omitted from the NYT article and Justin had actually texted his PR team he didn't want to slander her. None of know what you're talking about.

Saying he didn't want to slander her is not exculpatory. He isn't accused of slander -- he's accused of a retaliatory PR campaign. Even if everything they posted online was true or couched as opinion (so not slander), by spreading negative publicity about an employee who had brought credible SH allegations, they were engaging in retaliatory behavior. Especially when there are a number of texts where Justin makes it clear the goal of the campaign is to discredit Lively should she speak publicly about her allegations.

Lively didn't bring sexual harassment allegations until December when she filed the lawsuit. Sony has denied there were any sexual harassment complaints filed to their HR. Your allegation that Justin was aware of the fact that she was going to file a sexual harassment complaint and thus hire a PR firm to discredit her specifically before it came out is literally baseless and a complete distortion of the facts and timelines of the case.

She made multiple complaints about Baldoni's and Heath's behavior, to Wayfarer and Sony, before the hiatus. These are detailed in both their complaints. She did not go through formal channels to file a "sexual harassment complaint" because (1) she wanted to handle it less confrontationally in order to protect the production, and (2) there were structural problems that made a more formal complaint possible -- Wayfarer had inadequate HR resources and Sony, which had a more formal HR process, kept kicking things back to Wayfarer. But Lively repeatedly raised concerns about everything she alleges in her lawsuit -- Baldoni asking her trainer about her weight, the unscripted kissing in scenes, the proposed nudity in the birth scene, Heath showing her the birth video, etc. None of this came as a surprise to Baldoni or Heath when it was raised again later in the 17 point list -- they knew she was unhappy about that stuff and had had discussions with her and with Sony about it.

That's not Justin or the studio's problem that she didn't take the proper protocol and issue a sexual harassment complaint to Sony and/or SAG-AFTRA as soon as she felt he was sexually harassing her. Had she done that, her case would have been rock solid. She's under fire because she has left out pertinent details and fabricated quotes by Baldoni and others on a number of occasions in her amended complaint that put the validity of her case into question. She is a grown woman and veteran of the industry and at this conjecture post me-too, there are clear conduct and behavioral boundaries that every cast member is subject to and is aware of what to do when those lines are crossed. Especially the lead stars of the film. She made a plethora of inappropriate sexual jokes, innuendos, comments, physical moves, and threats against Baldoni that any reasonable person could argue were in equal value to the ones she claims he made against her and yet, he did not file a sexual harassment suit or complaint. This is their problem and now the courts will decide and weigh in all of their conduct and exchanges to evaluate if it had malice.

Where is the proof that Lively has stated that 1, she wanted to handle it less confrontationally in order to protect the production and 2, stated that there were structural problems that made a formal complaint possible (I think you meant impossible). Show me where she specifically stated these two key issues about sexual harassment specifically. Sony has again denied she filed a sexual harassment complain to HR. Lively did not issue a sexual harassment allegation until the lawsuit in December.

What Wayfarer should have done, and what a competent company would do, is involve HR as soon as it was clear Lively was raising these concerns, and create a formal process to address discomfort and prevent any future issues moving forward. That is what Sony would have done, for instance, if this happened on the set of a movie they were actually producing as the producing studio. Sony has lots of lawyers and HR professionals who would have investigated and laid out a framework for moving forward. Wayfarer blew it off, figured Blake would get over it, and made no changes to their operations. And then during the hiatus when Blake became so stressed about returning to set and having to film all her intimate scenes with people who had repeatedly blown off her concerns specifically about how they handled intimacy and nudity on set, she essentially forced Wayfarer to do what they should have done from the jump and commit to certain protections on the set, and also forced Sony to get more involved to protect the production and actors.

To say that's not a "credibly SH allegation" is bizarre to me. You can't avoid a credible allegation by just refusing to take an employee's *repeated* complaints about behavior related to sex and gender in the workplace seriously. And it wasn't even just Blake! At least one other actress on the set vocally complained about gendered or sexist comments by Heath. So you have what appears to be a pattern of behavior that is making multiple women on the set uncomfortable to the point of raising concerns with Sony or directly with Heath and Baldoni, and Wayfarer at no point initiated an HR investigation into the incidents to try and address the issues. In fact, Wayfarer didn't initiate an investigation until 2025, when they hired a law firm to conduct an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment on the set of the movie, likely because they knew the total absence of any action by the company to look into these allegations looks really, really bad for their defense against Blake's claims.

That's not what I said. The burden of proof is on her to prove she was a victim of pervasive workplace sexual harassment. And her allegations so far, have not met the threshold. You are trying to include unrelated complaints by another actress about another person on set to the sexual harassment case against Baldoni and it's comically absurd. Gendered and sexist comments doesn't = sexual harassment and neither does it rise to the threshold of pervasive workplace sexual harassment. If Lively felt that Wayfarer was so incompetent and fostered such an unsafe work environment, she could have completely severed ties with the production and never returned. What we do know is she that was enjoying the production and the cast and crew (including Justin), until he rebuffed some of her intiial demands. As time moved forward, she drafted a list of demands that they all agreed to before resuming filming, and she had no issues after the fact.

The idea that Baldoni and Wayfarer didn't know about the SH allegations until Blake filed her lawsuit is ludicrous. They not only knew, there are multiple texts between Baldoni and Abel where he expresses concern about the allegations being made public. There are even texts between Abel and others where she expresses concern about how the allegations could affect Baldoni's reputation or the film. These texts date as far back as January 2024 when the movie was still in production. They knew. They knew and did nothing to address it, but gosh they sure were busy little bees when it came to making sure no one would believe Blake if she came forward, by trashing her rep online via TAG and JW.

I would love to see the text message exchanges between Baldoni and Abel that you have that show he expressed concern about sexual harassment allegations being made. I would also love to see the dates presented on the text messages about the sexual harassment you have because that was a point of contention for his NYT lawsuit with the dates being redacted. It's interesting in February Blake was shut down by Judge Liman from obtaining 2 years worth of text messages and phone records she was trying to subpoena from Baldoni. Further cementing the argument that her team nor the NYT's had all the text messages and evidence they claimed they did.

It is 100% their problem.

If you run a business, and an employee starts making complaints about your behavior or another employee's behavior, and the complaints involve sexual comments or situations, or gendered or sexist comments, the onus is on YOU to investigate those complaints and address them. The employee is not actually required to say "this is sexual harassment" in order to preserve a right to sue later. And in fact, the first few complaints may not even constitute sexual harassment because if it's not quid pro quo, and if the behavior stopped after the first or second incident, it's unlikely it would rise to the level of "severe and pervasive" needed for a hostile work environment claim.

But the employer has a duty to look into the incidents and address them. Even if the employee doesn't say "this is sexual harassment." This is why employers generally have HR staff who are well versed in SH and other forms of workplace harassment who can step in and investigate and then suggest a plan for going forward that will prevent a couple incidents from becoming SH if the incidents continue or worsen. This is one of the main purposes of HR.

So yes, it is very much Justin's and Jamey's and Wayfarer's problem that after multiple complaints from Blake concerning issues that could give rise to an SH claim (including Justin requesting Blake's weight from her trainer, and Blake complaining about Jamey looking at her when she was topless/nursing/pumping, both of which happened either in pre-production or very early in filming and both of which Wayfarer was fully aware of) they failed to involve HR, conduct and investigation, and take steps to address any issues. Instead, they tried to placate Blake with apologies/promises, and then proceeded to pressure her to do unscripted nudity. And then Justin told Jamey to go show Blake Jamey's wife's birth video, which is just a weird thing to do at work in general, but especially weird when you remember that at this point, Blake had expressed multiple complaints about Justina and Jamey violating boundaries.

Their failure to involve HR very early on when it was clear there was some kind of boundary/miscommunication issue between Blake and Justin and possibly between Blake and Jamey was stupid, and potentially, a massive liability.

This is a film production. There are unions the actors are represented by who are responsible for ensuring their clients are in a safe workplace. Lively did not go to through her union or filed a formal HR complaint to Sony or Wayfarer as she was supposed to. It's not their responsibility to invoke HR when the employee did not report a formal HR complaint. This is the reality for nearly all working companies in America. Plenty of employees make complaints about sexist, religious, political, or unpalatable jokes or comments made towards them or another person or group and none of these complaints are taken seriously unless they make a formal complaint to HR so they can begin a proper investigation. Lively did not do this and thus, no HR investigation commenced. Wayfarer went above and beyond accommodating Lively's numerous request and demands. And when everyone agreed to her final 17 point demand, she went back to work without issue as stated in the suit. They listened, took action, and performed to her standard. This solidifies the fact that she felt safe enough to continue working there.

Now she's doubling back and making insidious claims to sexual harassment and a retaliatory hate campaign once she received widespread backlash for her tone deaf marketing over the film and her subsequent hair and drink line failures. She admitted to interviewers she had never had the experiences Lily Bloom had and neither did she conceive the "Grab your florals" marketing pitch. If her argument had any merit, she should be suing Sony for the backlash and her abysmal sales. She wanted the narrative changed so she's suing him to destroy his reputation and career. Because she isn't that smart, she didn't realize he has all the original dailies and audio + the text messages and email exchanges to refute many of her claims.

You or others keep asserting that this is the "proper" way to report sexual harassment on a film set and... it's not.

Sure, she could have reported the incidents to SAG. That's one way to go about it. SAG would likely kick it back to the production company and say "please address." Even if the complaints didn't say "this is sexual harassment." So Wayfarer and Blake would wind up in the same position as they did, which is where Blake is complaining about behavior she believes to be problematic, and Wayfarer knows it. This changes nothing about the fact pattern except puts SAG on notice, but I don't see what good it does.

Also, I don't know that all of the incidents would be covered by SAG. The pressure on her to do a scene nude at the last minute -- definitely, they have guidelines for nudity and this explicitly violated those guidelines. But by the time this happened, there was already a laundry list of incidents.

The first incident happened in pre-production and I don't know that SAG would even have any say in that -- Baldoni asking Lively's trainer for her weight. It didn't happen on set. It did concern Lively as an actor, so maybe the union would have a say, but I don't know. Again, had Lively gone to the union here, I think they would have just alerted Wayfarer and said "hey, there's an issue with this production." Which they already knew.

Also, one thing SAG does in situations like this is ensure that an actor has representation and advocates. For someone like Lively, there's no point -- she has agency representation, she has lawyers, she's already advocating for herself. So SAG's involvement isn't as important as it would be for a rank and file member.

Anyway, there's no reason she HAD to go to SAG to report this stuff. There's no rule that says you have to handle it that way. She *did* report these incidents. Wayfarer knew about them.

As for HR, that's the whole problem. Wayfarer does have HR. It looks like they just have one HR person for the whole company though, and there's no indication this person was ever on set. Was Lively ever provided with this person's contact info or a method for reaching out to them with issues? That's normally something an employee should be provided with before they start work. But it sounds like Lively's primary contacts at the company were Baldoni and Heath. So she reported the incidents to Baldoni and Heath, who were on set. If a company doesn't provide employees with access to HR, I don't see how you can complain that they failed to go through proper channels -- they didn't set up "proper channels."

This was Wayfarer's rodeo. If they wanted to ensure that any potential harassment issues were handled well, they could have set up their company and this production to ensure everything would be handled above-board by an HR professional. That's their failure. Lively appears to have made plenty of effort to make sure Wayfarer was aware of problems as they arose. They did nothing and did not even appear to understand that these repeat issues were signs of a serious issue, instead simply writing it off as an actress being difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, this conversation has been dragged out way too long. In summary: She was clearly wrong that he was on set. She had a reasonable explanation for thinking he was. This is just not a big deal at all. The jury will never hear anything about it, because she won't allege that he was there in court.

Haven’t been on this thread today, but jumping in to say it absolutely is a big deal. Because all of her complaints are fairly subjective and minor issues and the reason she stacked so many of them is because none in their own would not rise the level of SH. What she is trying to do is show a pattern and so when part of the pattern is shown to be a blatant lie or wrong, it is a big deal actually.

So when you start picking apart each one and showing that she was off or leaving off context, it really breaks down the argument that there was a pattern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh, this conversation has been dragged out way too long. In summary: She was clearly wrong that he was on set. She had a reasonable explanation for thinking he was. This is just not a big deal at all. The jury will never hear anything about it, because she won't allege that he was there in court.

Agreed. Not an issue.