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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Baldoni's lawyers will file "Motions in Limine" to block Lively from detailing the alleged harassment, arguing it will unfairly poison the jury against him for claims he's already been cleared of. Judges despise "mini-trials" within a trial. The judge will likely allow Lively to testify that she complained about inappropriate behavior, but will cut her off if she tries to present extensive evidence or call multiple witnesses to prove the underlying behavior itself.[/quote]

He hasn't been "cleared" of those claims. Lively is just prevented from bringing them because she is determined to have been an independent contractor, not an employee. She will be required to detail the alleged harassment in order to prove that she had a reasonable belief she had been harassed when she brought her complaint.

If it goes to trial, the jury *will* hear testimony and evident regarding the four incidents the judge has outlined, which are also her four strongest allegations. And he will be disinclined to limit further because he's already handed Wayfarer a win in how narrowly he's cut Lively's case. Why would he then cut it further? If he wanted to throw the whole thing out, he would have. He didn't.[/quote]

Dp but the court actually did say about half of her sh allegations, as a matter of law, were deficient and could not be used as part of her retaliation case.

Also disagree about the strength of her remaining allegations.  He called me sexy and he said I don’t watch porn is going nowhere once her texts and sexy boots video are presented.  Further, much of her birthing scene allegations have bern discredited ( what she wearing, who was present, etc) which is going to put her credibility in question.  Same with the trailer allegations.
[/quote]

But, again, she doesn't have to prove that the remaining allegations constituted sexual harassment. Only that it was reasonable for her to believe they did. I know within the echo chamber of pro-Baldoni Reddit, it's very hard to understand this. But the jurors will not be people who sit around watching Kjersti Flaa videos or speculating on whether Ryan Reynolds is secretly gay all day long. They'll just be regular people with lives.

Regular people with lives could be persuaded that a woman felt that being called sexy by her director, having a producer walk in on her nude after she requested he please not, having the director make a joke about her not watching porn, and being told that she needed to appear nude in a birth scene because "it's not normal" for women to wear hospital gowns during childbirth, added up to sexual harassment.

Keep in mind that some members of the jury will likely be women who have given birth wearing hospital gowns, and people who are horrified at the idea that someone they work with might insist on coming into a room where they were nude. Again, in pro-Baldoni bubble land, these are all normal things that anyone should accept, but in reality a lot of people will find that upsetting and will think "yeah, I can see why she thought she'd been harassed." And that's all she needs for this part of her case.[/quote]

Agree with this, but I'm not sure how much it matters. Seems clear they retaliated against her and that's the meat of the case.

WaPo headline: Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against Justin Baldoni tossed out but robust case remains[/quote]

It matters because in order to show they retaliated, she must first show that her complaints were made in good faith

Tho one of the strongest pieces of evidence for this is cited in Liman's decision -- Baldoni commented (via text) that Blake clearly genuinely believed her allegations.[/quote]

I think Blake fans are holding onto the sh claims for dear life. They’re gone. WF can send a company rep to testify (doesn’t even have to be Justin) that there’s no dispute she engaged in protected activity. That they addressed all of her concerns, which is also undisputed. And that their pr was defensive as a result of her behavior a year and a half later. They can note that not only did they have no motive to harm Blake’s reputation, but that when they saw her marketing going poorly they reached out to Sony and advised her to course correct. That multiple content creators, including the author of the little bump video, said their posts were organic. That Sony execs with intimate knowledge of the industry said she brought this on herself. Further they can testify that she suffered no adverse employment impact, as they paid her in good faith despite having no obligation to do so b/c her contract was never signed (which she then tried to hold against them in her msj response and the judge basically said oh no you don’t). That at every turn they have sought to appease and be fair to lively but they also have an obligation to protect themselves, their employees whom she was harming, and the movie. She’s cooked to use Sony’s words, and her fans are delusional.[/quote]

There is no reason for them to agree there was protected activity which would be an admission of her remaining sh allegations .  They will vigorously attack that point, and there is very good evidence available to them.  And that evidence will be very embarrassing for Blake.  Appreciate that you are a Baldoni supporter, but hold off on the legal analysis if you aren’t a lawyer and haven’t read the opinion.[/quote]

Clearly you’re the one who should hold off on the legal analysis b/c agreeing that she engaged in protected activity is not an admission that she was harassed. It is nothing more than an admission she complained, which is pretty undisputed. Multiple lawyers have said wayfarer may go this route if this thing ever goes to court. It’s not in their interest to rehash the SH after winning those claims. [/quote]

They contested it on summary judgment and will contest it at trial.  Blake’s burden for retaliation includes establishing she had a reasonable belief a hostile work environment existed based on four specific allegations of sh that the Court did not throw out.  In other words, The claim for sexual harassment is gone, but some of her sexual harassment allegations remain part of her retaliation  claim. WF will absolutely contest this.

Again, it is obvious you did not read the opinion.

[/quote]

They contested it in the motion and lost. That’s why it’s still in the case. Lucky for them their lawyers aren’t getting legal strategy from dc urban moms and aren’t dumb enough to double down on a losing argument. Clearly you didn’t read the opinion. [/quote]

OMG, you definitely aren’t a lawyer.  Because on summary judgment, the judge will only look at the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff, that’s the standard.  Entirely different ball game at trial.

There are still four specific sexual harassment allegations that are part of the retaliation case (use of the word sexy, birthing scene, trailer, and porn comment).  Why in the world do you think they would stipulate to them?

[/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