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]Was this meeting not understood as the "all hands" that Lively requested which would include her personal representative? I thought the all hands was part of her requests for protection to return which would imply that the protections would be discussed there. I have not read all the depos though. I'm just surprised they were that surprised at the subject matter (surprised at the tone and RR being the rep would be understandable).[/quote]

You are correct. There was a document that went to Wayfarer and Sony (including Heath, Baldoni, Ange, and Todd Black) called "Protections for Return to Production." They received the email with this document on November 9, 2023. In the document, it specifies that there will be "An all-hands, in-person meeting before production resumes which will include the director, all producers, the Sony representative, the newly-engaged third-party producer, Ms. Lively and Lively's designated representative to confirm and approve a plan for implementation of all the above that will be adhered to for the physical and emotional safety of BL, her employees and all the cast and crew moving forward."

The film was set to resume shooting January 5th. So this January 4th meeting was obviously intended to be the all-hands. I find it bizarre that Ange claims in her deposition that she thought the meeting was going to be about script revisions, or Heath and Baldoni claim they were blindsided. They were informed of the topic of the meeting two months in advance. Maybe people don't read their email? But Heath confirmed in his depo that he had received that document on Nov. 9th. I don't know, it's such a weird inconsistency.

Another annoying inconsistency: both Baldoni and Heath contend that in the Jan. 4th meeting, Lively did not read the full 17-point list, and that what she did read did not include the phrase "no more" at the start of each entry on the list. They claim she only read a few of these items and that they were then surprised later when they got a hard copy to sign and it had this other stuff on it. But Ange testified at her deposition that Lively read pretty much the entire list (I don't think there was any item on the list Ange identified as not having been read at the meeting) and that the "no more" language was included. This is important because "no more" obviously indicates that this behavior had occurred previously, and Heath says in his depo that had they heard that phrasing at the meeting, they wouldn't have agreed to sign the document, because he and Baldoni contend that not everything on that list had happened previously, and even the stuff they admit happened, they feel was taken out of context, and they would not have signed a document that seemed like a confession to things they dont' believe happened. And yet they did. It's very confusing.

Whatever PP said that there should have been an HR rep present at the Jan. 4th meeting is correct. And also Baldoni and Heath should have been working with both counsel and their own HR well before that meeting. One of the most baffling aspects of all of this is that over and over, people in positions of authority (Baldoni, Heath, Ange, Todd Black) are asked if they spoke to HR or even considered opening an HR investigation as they were getting these complaints from Blake and Jenny on the set. And each time they are like "no, we thought it was handled, it didn't seem to rise to the level of HR." And STILL they receive this document from Blake in November that is basically saying she won't return to the set of a half-filmed movie unless certain conditions regarding "workplace safety" are met, and they don't involve HR. And then even after the Jan. 4 meeting, they don't involve HR.

I'm sorry, these people are freaking incompetent. If I were any of these people (which I would not be because I behave professionally at work), I would have been on the phone with HR the very first time I'm getting wind of someone claiming they were walked in on while undressed, or that their boss was in their trailer crying for hours, or hey someone on set showed me this video of his wife that made me feel uncomfortable. EVEN if I thought the complaint was BS and there wasn't a real problem there. It doesn't matter. This is what HR is for. Given the other details of this situation, I'd likely also be consulting in-house counsel because there are these questions with regard to contracts, the SAG union and their guidelines, just all kinds of issues. Sony obviously had these resources, and even Wayfarer, though small, had HR staff and lawyers. It remains baffling to me that they never once thought to involve those folks. It's not an admission of guilt, it's just the practical and sensible way to deal with thorny employment conflicts.[/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