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]Isn’t this irrelevant to the case? [/quote]

It’s relevant to the question of whether or not she was an employee. Wayfarer is arguing, and I agree, that she had far too much power to be considered an employee. If she is ruled an independent contractor she can’t even bring her title 7 claims.[/quote]

I don't think the squabbling over which cut was released is relevant to whether or not she was an employee on the set. Wayfarer was the shooting studio, they ran the set. The question is whether or not Lively was an employee or an independent contractor *on that set* since that's where the alleged harassment is supposed to have taken place.

All the stuff about which cut was released is related to post-production, distribution, and marketing. Sony was the distribution studio. Blake isn't suing Sony and there's no conversation about whether she was an employee of Sony's.

I just don't think which cut Sony chose to release has any bearing on whether Blake was an employee on the set of the movie. They are separate operations, as per the agreement between Wayfarer and Sony.[/quote]

Wrong. This entire debacle with the cut shows that both wayfarer and Blake were independent entities negotiating terms with a third independent entity (Sony). If Blake were an employee that could not happen period. When’s the last time you went to one of your employer’s business partners and negotiated for your own interests in contradiction to your employer’s? [/quote]

I'm not even arguing that Blake was an employee of the movie -- I tend to think she was probably an independent contractor, though I'm waiting to see what the court says because there are some situations where an IC may be deemed an employee simply for the application of certain protective statutes, so I'm trying to stay open minded.

But even IF she was an employee of the movie, that employment ended with the filming ended. So Blake was no longer an employee when the bake off was happening.

I also disagree that Blake was arguing against Wayfarer's interests. She might have been arguing against Justin's personal interests, but I do think Blake was trying to ensure a successful and profitable film release. I actually think this is a major reason Sony went with her cut. She's trying to sell the movie. She's getting Colleen on board, she's taking it to Book Bonanza to get Colleen's fans on board, she's getting Taylor's song for the trailer, etc. I think Blake was trying to sell the heck out of the movie. Justin and Wayfarer were not, and that was the problem. Justin was going on vacation, he was begging out of marketing commitments claiming a back injury, etc. And if Wayfarere really did hire TAG and Jed Wallace to attack Lively online as the movie was coming out, that is also counter to the interests of the movie, which is counter to Sony's interests, as well as of course Blake's.

This has been something that annoyed me from the start. If I were Sony and I saw those text messages from Jen Abel's phone, I'm pissed because Sony had a lot invested in the movie being successful, plus they are dealing with this meltdown between Justin and Blake and all the bickering back and forth. They just want to successfully launch the movie and make money. In that situation, if I then found out that Justin had hired a PR team to try and go after the star of the film as the film was premiering? Honestly, in that situation I'd be suing Wayfarer for breach of our partnership agreement because that could jeopardize my money as the distributing studio. I think this is likely why Sony came out in support of Blake when she filed her complaint, because those texts make Justin and Wayfarer look pretty duplicitous from Sony's perspective. Even if you understand why Justin thought he had to do that to protect himself, going after the star of your own movie the week it premieres is bad behavior, made worse if another studio has millions on the line as part of a distribution agreement.[/quote]

This is a reach. The only part that makes any sense is that yes, any alleged employment would’ve ended by the bake off which is another reason that IC or not Blake’s retaliation claims fail. She’s asking the judge to apply employment law in a novel way to bad PR she received after her “employment” had ended. There’s so many problems with Blake’s case. Her lawyers are making loads of contradictory arguments just to see if any stick.

And to say Sony should be furious with Justin is laughable. If you read Leslie Sloane’s deposition you will learn that she was seeding bad stories to the press to make Blake look better. She said it was her job as a publicist to provide “balance” so when reporters would call her about things they were hearing about Blake, one of the tools she would use would be to say “well here’s the other side of it” and tell them something bad about Justin. She told the press he was I think the word was “monster” and that “everyone hates Justin. When asked why, she responded multiple times to Wayfarer’s lawyers “because I felt like it”. The alleged smear campaign simply didn’t happen, and if it did then you have to concede both sides were doing it. If you can’t concede both sides were “smearing” then you have to accept that’s just PR.[/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