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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works. [/quote]

There hasn’t been a specific example  by Lively of an  article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even a example of such an article.[/quote]

Why would you pay someone to spread stories, even if true, that make your employee look bad? What do you call that and why would you pay someone to help you do it?[/quote]

She wasn’t their employee, and what you describe is not a “smear.”[/quote]

DP. A claim for retaliation in this context can be about a former employee. This is why companies often have boiler plate language to provide about a former employee if contacted for a reference, for example. If an employee made a good faith complaint about working conditions while working for you, and then leaves, bad mouthing them to future employers could give rise to a retaliation claim.

So the question is not whether what Wayfarer did is a "smear" -- that's just the term used in the NYT article and has no legal relevance.

Rather, the question is whether (assuming for the moment that Lively's complaints during the production will be found to be protected activity) Wayfarer sought to retaliate against her for those complaints, by destroying her reputation, harming her career, or causing emotional pain and suffering.[/quote]

Retaliation in sexual harassment lawsuits is traditionally about demotions, firings or reductions in salary or responsibilities.  None of that happened here.  Nor is it alleged that Blake had a potential new project contact WF for a reference and received a negative one.

Instead, Blake alleges a “smear” which by definition would involve false information being spread about her.[/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