Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

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]JB engaged a crisis management team in order to protect his reputation from the rumors and gossip being promoted by three public refusal of BL and cast to work with JB.  This was most publicized by BL shutting him away from the cast at the premier.  It was not a result of any claim made by BL in regards to the workplace [/quote]

But will a court see it that way? Did his team just seek to protect Baldoni's rep or did it explicitly seek to destroy Lively's?[/quote]

“Will a court see it that way” is not a synonym with establishing a fact pattern. Do better, okay? [/quote]

What are you talking about? It's a valid question. I'm not trying to "establish a fact pattern." I'm trying to have a conversation about this case, which I think is interesting. Sorry if you thought this was a Justin Baldoni fan club website? I don't actually care about any of these people.

If Baldoni's team hired Jed Wallace and Jed Wallace employed bots to post on popular sites and stir up negative sentiment about Lively, and they did, would that be viewed as retaliation? I'm genuinely asking because it seems like that's kind of the crux of her retaliation case.[/quote]

The whole basis of the retaliation is that JB’s actions were the result of BL’s sexual harassment complaints.  If that wasn’t what happened there’s not a retaliation case.[/quote]

I don't think that's actually true.

On the thread that got shut down, there were some very interesting (and I think unbiased) comments from people who are well versed in employment law talking about how in a case like this, the harassment part can be weak and the employer can still get hit on the retaliation claim. They were talking about how that's why employers are advised to be extremely careful with dismissing employees who have raised harassment accusations and have to treat former employees like this with kid gloves (don't bad mouth them to other employers, etc.) because you can lose a retaliation claim even if the harassment allegations are thin.

I'm not an employment lawyer so I'm probably butchering this but it was an extensive conversation about this aspect of her complaint and was very interesting. That's why the discussion of Jed Wallace is so critical, I think. I believe that was the first deposition Lively's team sought, even before deposing Baldoni or Heath or the PR folks. I think they know that if they can prove Baldoni employed Wallace and Wallace actually did work for him, it would be incredibly helpful to their case.[/quote]

You’re not understanding - the retaliation that BL is claiming is a result of her reporting sexual harassment and a negative work environment on the set.  JB bent over backwards to apologize and attempt to make her comfortable after that.  It wasn’t until that BL started publicly taking actions meant to cause harm to JB’s reputation that he consulted or crisis management.  [/quote]

You should know that your use of JB/BL makes your posts very identifiable.

Anyway, I understand that is Baldoni's argument. But Lively's argument is that Baldoni signed a document agreeing to change certain things on set and also promising not to retaliate against her for her claims, and that he later hired crisis PR that engaged in efforts to smear Lively's name online, including hiring Jed Wallace who runs an astroturfing firm and later crediting "Jed and his team" with a lot of negative online content about Lively.

I don't actually know which narrative is correct, I was just writing about how I'm interested to see what comes of the Wallace deposition, as if he testifies that he was in fact hired by Baldoni and his PR team and did engage in astroturfing against Lively, this will strengthen Lively's retaliation claim. Because it's very hard for Baldoni to argue that he hired Wallace to astroturf negative content about Lively online simply to protect his own rep.

Maybe Wallace will testify that he never actually did any work for Baldoni's team, or he'll provide proof that he didn't astroturf against Blake but only seeded positive stories about Baldoni. That would back up Baldoni's claim and really undermine Lively's.

It will be interesting to see what he says. That's all I'm saying. I fully understand the underlying claims made by both sides. Do you?[/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