Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The retaliation is only actionable if tied to protected activity (SH) and WF makes a compelling argument that the conduct does not meet the conditions of SH, and even if it did, the 9 mos between the alleged SH and the retaliation was too long to assume connection, and even if it weren’t, there were intervening factors that break the causal link (her taking control of the movie etc). If the judge accepts any of these arguments the retaliation claim is done as far as employment law is concerned.

Blake takes a second shot at retaliation under contract law. However Wayfarer argues she never signed her contract, it wasn’t assumed in place because they all moved forward with the movie (which some have argued) and that they were actually operating from and paying her under her offer letter. Apparently nothing that happened was a breach of the offer letter. Should the judge find the unsigned contract is enforceable, the contract terms required lively to give WF notice and 30 days to cure the issue (I think that’s basically a mediation clause). She instead asked for an immediate right to sue and filed the lawsuit 4 days later. So even if the contract was enforceable and even if it were breached by WF, she did not take the steps required by the contract to remedy disputes.

Curious, to see what Blake responds with b/c it seems like a lot of this could get kicked pre trial.[/quote]

I have been highly critical of Wayfarer but the memo of law was very strong (have not even begun looking at the exhibits other than the tidbits on reddit). This is like their dismissed complaint in the sense that it contextualizes a lot of interactions that were made to seem very damning in her complaint, but these are couched in solid legal arguments, not PR and hyperbole. Where the original complaint was all "she didn't even read the book!!11" this one is arguing that she had knowledge of the type of movie she signed up for and was very astute in how she negotiated that, and when they started getting into how she wanted to move filming to NJ (which I hadn't realized!), that wasn't just to portray her as a diva, that was actually leading up to an analysis of whether she was an independent contractor vs an employee and the implications of that... very well done. It's a completely different style of lawyering now.

Some of the cases they cited (haven't read them so we'll see how Lively distinguishes them) were also super interesting. There was one about a FEHA claim from female writers on Friends being dismissed where the male writers were being extremely raunchy and talking about their sex lives, and the court ruled that was not SH in the context of writing for an adult sitcom. Another case said commenting on a co-worker's breast implants would be offensive in a regular workplace, but not on the Real Housewives show. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics