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]I watched a few of the recaps from the content creators of today’s oral arguments, and it seems like the judge is inclined to kick a bunch stuff.

SH: the judge did not seem inclined to apply California law extraterritorially, which would kick her FEHA SH claims; he also did not seem inclined to rule she was an employee, though he said you could be an employee without a W-2. He is focused on how things happened in practice and because of that the content creators believe the PGA letter will hurt. If he rules she was an independent contractor her federal (title 7) SH claims go away.

Spoliation: on spoliation, he was disengaged, which made observers think he had already made up his mind to kick that one. Wilkie and Manatt might have anticipated that because they let a junior partner argue that claim.

Retaliation: this is where it gets interesting. Wilkie and Manatt seem very aware of the problem the temporal gap will present (18 mos btwn Lively’s complaints on set and the supposed smear campaign) because they have moved the goal post and are now saying Lively’s protected activity was her refusal to go to the premier with Baldoni. They said this is a form of protest which can be considered protected activity. The content creators rolled their eyes at that one (it’s a reach). Another hurdle is that ruling in her favor would require the judge to set precedent because bad press has never been ruled an adverse employment action. The judge seemed more inclined to allow it to move forward as a breach of contract claim since lively defined retaliation broadly in the 17 point document that wayfarer signed. Though I’m not sure if they brought it as a contract claim too (I think they did but I’m not sure).[/quote]

PP again. One other thing. The judge doesn’t seem inclined to honor the unsigned contract and will likely base his rulings on the offer letter. I can’t remember what implications that carries for the various claims.[/quote]

I am not going to try to predict what Liman will do, but IF he finds her to be an independent contractor (as opposed to employee) and if he finds that California law does not apply, a very significant portion of Blake’s case is gone[/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