Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eleanor the Great is on Netflix. Another Wayfarer & Sony collaboration with scarjo as director and Justin as EP. Seems like everyone managed to get on just fine once you removed one person from the equation. As Steve Sarowitz said, “everyone’s nice, and then there’s Blake.”

Even Justin wouldn't stoop to leering at a 90-year-old and calling her sexy.

You’re a contemptible a-hole on a few levels.

I think PP meant his a-holery at least has some limits, aka respect for elders. At least I'm hoping Squibb wouldn't be among the TEN women who went on the record about his series of offensive behaviors.

At least half of those women had nothing to do with Blake, and went on the record independently. But the Justin stans have no answer for why they would do that except, maybe just maybe, he is a sexist creep who enjoys exerting power over women. I wish I could wipe my memory clean of how he discussed a *teenage sex scene* with that poor young actress. Glad Blake succeeded in getting some of the more prurient, unauthorized scenes scrubbed.

No one cares about the other women because none of their allegations have any substance. Meanwhile, Blake’s claims fall apart by the hour.

Right. That many claims about hostile work environment do not come out of nowhere. I bet you consider yourself a feminist, which is a joke. The fact that no one from that set, or the prior one with complaints, is going on the record to defend him speaks VOLUMES.

The fact that the complaints are not limited to the IEWU set is important for establishing a pattern. No one can claim Blake's undue influence in the former case. Complaints about Justin necessitating his removal from another set are highly relevant.

NP. I'm not following this super closely, but the pattern of offensive behavior toward women on two different sets plus the timing of hiring someone to "shine a light on BL and RR" right when the complaints about Baldoni started coming out (suggesting retaliation) seems to constitute a credible case. I'll be very curious to see how it plays out.

I'm not a lawyer of course, but I don't understand the independent contractor argument. If she fulfilled the duties of executive producer, and was credited as such, she's an employee of the production company (Sony), right? Please clarify if I'm missing how this works in employment laws. Also, is this a point Baldoni's lawyers are pursuing or just something being tossed around on social media?

This has been explained many times on this thread. There isn’t really a strong pattern of offensive behavior.

Blake and Jenny clearly had a problem with Baldoni and Heath but people are doubting whether it will meet the definition of sexual harassment. A lot of Blake’s claims have fallen apart now that we’ve seen video and text message and documentation, etc. Jenny’s claims were very vague and didn’t seem to be about SH.

Claire A never actually met Baldoni, she worked with wayfarer on another project and there was disagreement on set, but not harassment claims.

Liz worked with Justin on 124 episodes ever several years of their man enough podcast, dramatically quitting when the New York Times article hit, and then partnering in a production company with Ryan Reynolds so it looks a little suspect

Isabel seem to really like Justin as video and text show, admitting in her deposition that she didn’t have a problem onset, but then later revisiting things had problems. This looks sketchy because Blake styled her, had her over for sleepovers, flew her to private events, and pushed for her to get an introducing credit.

Colleen Hoover also seemed to be fine with Justin until Blake got involved. Admitting in her deposition when asked why she unfollowed Justin, she said because Blake told me too.

Blake didn’t seem to have a lot of substance so she tried to pump up the volume of claims, but they tend to fall apart. The main question I have is why she was referring to Justin with such distain very early on, mocking him to others, calling him names, etc., all while leaving him very flattering voice notes, and texts as if they were really close - and this was before she had any allegations so just not sure why she hated him so much from the start. and that really has me questioning this whole case.

Wait. Claire Ayoub definitely met Justin. The disagreement on her set was with Justin.

One of Jenny's claims was Justin calling actresses (including Jenny) "sexy" on set even after Jenny had told him it was inappropriate to do so. That is definitely related to SH.

You didn't mention Alex Saks.

Also Colleen testified that her issues with Justin started before she'd ever even had a conversation with Blake.

I think it's more nuanced than you are presenting. I don't know if Blake really has a case or not and am waiting to see what the judge decides on the summary judgment motion, but it's not as lopsided as you are presenting it. There were definitely multiple women who were uncomfortable around Justin or felt his behavior was, at minimum, sexist. You can be sexist or hard to work with and not sexually harass someone, of course. But this case seems to come down to a matter of degree and interpretation.

What you describe above is not actionable as sexual harassment or hostile work place.

NP. We'll see what the judge says, but formal complaints were made by a number of women who are on the record describing specific incidents and saying working with him was horrible (some even saying it was the worst professional experience they'd ever had).

Anyway, there's no point in arguing with Justin stans who incessantly cherrypick and make sweeping assertions based on nothing.

There’s so much bad information on here. No one made any formal complaints, including Blake. That’s why a key question in her case and one the judge asked repeatedly during oral arguments is “what was the protected activity?” For the record, Gottlieb’s response was that it was Blake’s refusal to go to the premiere with Baldoni. Her case is about as thin as a blade of grass. Lively supporters should brace for much of this to get kicked.

This is demonstrably untrue. Why do you keep gaslighting?

Empire Waist:
Accusations by Director: Claire Ayoub, who directed Empire Waist (a film produced by Baldoni's company, Wayfarer Studios), alleged that she experienced "repeated, negative interactions" with Baldoni and his associates, including "verbal abuse".
Request to Ban from Set: Due to these interactions, Ayoub requested that Baldoni "not be permitted" on set during the majority of the 25-day production in Syracuse, NY.
Marketing Restrictions: Ayoub further requested that Baldoni not be involved in the film's marketing or public relations efforts.

IEWU:
During Filming (May 2023): Lively first reported her concerns regarding "unwelcome and inappropriate behavior" by Baldoni and Heath to a Sony representative. Another female cast member also reported similar concerns around the same time.
Post-WGA Strike (January 2024): Before filming resumed after the writers' strike, a meeting was held to address the "hostile work environment". Lively, accompanied by her husband Ryan Reynolds, presented a list of 30 protections to Wayfarer Studios, Baldoni's production company. These included stipulations such as "no more improvising of kissing" and "no more personal, physical touching of, or sexual comments by, Mr Baldoni or Mr Heath to be tolerated".

You said a formal complaint. That means a complaint made pursuant to a formal HR procedure. No evidence that Claire did that, nor did Blake.

Blake was not permitted to make a formal HR complaint. Wayfarer failed to provide any way to report an HR complaint on set. When Blake went to Sony, she was told by Ange Giannetti that Sony could not do anything because it wasn't their set. Blake then went back to Wayfarer, requesting multiple meetings with Baldoni and Heath in which she discussed "HR complaints" about behavior, including Baldoni's sexy comment, him crying in her trailer, Heath walking in on her in the makeup trailer, and Heath showing her the birthing video without consent.

Alex Saks also reported these incidents, plus those involving Jenny Slate, to both Ange Giannetti (who, again, told her to go to Wayfarer) and to Heath and Baldoni. Alex testified that she encouraged Wayfarer to conduct a formal investigation of these issues in order to resolve them in a formal way so that people could move forward. Alex also testified that Heath declined to do so, and that he told Alex that he would prefer that the allegations not be recorded or written down.

That is more than enough to qualify for "formal complaints" in the absence of any formal structure where these women could have actually created a formal complaint. Also, in some cases the lack of HR or lack of HR policies/structure around SH can be found to be a negligent act that contributes to a hostile work environment by giving victims no recourse for addressing negative behavior before it escalates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eleanor the Great is on Netflix. Another Wayfarer & Sony collaboration with scarjo as director and Justin as EP. Seems like everyone managed to get on just fine once you removed one person from the equation. As Steve Sarowitz said, “everyone’s nice, and then there’s Blake.”

Even Justin wouldn't stoop to leering at a 90-year-old and calling her sexy.

You’re a contemptible a-hole on a few levels.

I think PP meant his a-holery at least has some limits, aka respect for elders. At least I'm hoping Squibb wouldn't be among the TEN women who went on the record about his series of offensive behaviors.

At least half of those women had nothing to do with Blake, and went on the record independently. But the Justin stans have no answer for why they would do that except, maybe just maybe, he is a sexist creep who enjoys exerting power over women. I wish I could wipe my memory clean of how he discussed a *teenage sex scene* with that poor young actress. Glad Blake succeeded in getting some of the more prurient, unauthorized scenes scrubbed.

No one cares about the other women because none of their allegations have any substance. Meanwhile, Blake’s claims fall apart by the hour.

Right. That many claims about hostile work environment do not come out of nowhere. I bet you consider yourself a feminist, which is a joke. The fact that no one from that set, or the prior one with complaints, is going on the record to defend him speaks VOLUMES.

The fact that the complaints are not limited to the IEWU set is important for establishing a pattern. No one can claim Blake's undue influence in the former case. Complaints about Justin necessitating his removal from another set are highly relevant.

NP. I'm not following this super closely, but the pattern of offensive behavior toward women on two different sets plus the timing of hiring someone to "shine a light on BL and RR" right when the complaints about Baldoni started coming out (suggesting retaliation) seems to constitute a credible case. I'll be very curious to see how it plays out.

I'm not a lawyer of course, but I don't understand the independent contractor argument. If she fulfilled the duties of executive producer, and was credited as such, she's an employee of the production company (Sony), right? Please clarify if I'm missing how this works in employment laws. Also, is this a point Baldoni's lawyers are pursuing or just something being tossed around on social media?

This has been explained many times on this thread. There isn’t really a strong pattern of offensive behavior.

Blake and Jenny clearly had a problem with Baldoni and Heath but people are doubting whether it will meet the definition of sexual harassment. A lot of Blake’s claims have fallen apart now that we’ve seen video and text message and documentation, etc. Jenny’s claims were very vague and didn’t seem to be about SH.

Claire A never actually met Baldoni, she worked with wayfarer on another project and there was disagreement on set, but not harassment claims.

Liz worked with Justin on 124 episodes ever several years of their man enough podcast, dramatically quitting when the New York Times article hit, and then partnering in a production company with Ryan Reynolds so it looks a little suspect

Isabel seem to really like Justin as video and text show, admitting in her deposition that she didn’t have a problem onset, but then later revisiting things had problems. This looks sketchy because Blake styled her, had her over for sleepovers, flew her to private events, and pushed for her to get an introducing credit.

Colleen Hoover also seemed to be fine with Justin until Blake got involved. Admitting in her deposition when asked why she unfollowed Justin, she said because Blake told me too.

Blake didn’t seem to have a lot of substance so she tried to pump up the volume of claims, but they tend to fall apart. The main question I have is why she was referring to Justin with such distain very early on, mocking him to others, calling him names, etc., all while leaving him very flattering voice notes, and texts as if they were really close - and this was before she had any allegations so just not sure why she hated him so much from the start. and that really has me questioning this whole case.

Wait. Claire Ayoub definitely met Justin. The disagreement on her set was with Justin.

One of Jenny's claims was Justin calling actresses (including Jenny) "sexy" on set even after Jenny had told him it was inappropriate to do so. That is definitely related to SH.

You didn't mention Alex Saks.

Also Colleen testified that her issues with Justin started before she'd ever even had a conversation with Blake.

I think it's more nuanced than you are presenting. I don't know if Blake really has a case or not and am waiting to see what the judge decides on the summary judgment motion, but it's not as lopsided as you are presenting it. There were definitely multiple women who were uncomfortable around Justin or felt his behavior was, at minimum, sexist. You can be sexist or hard to work with and not sexually harass someone, of course. But this case seems to come down to a matter of degree and interpretation.

What you describe above is not actionable as sexual harassment or hostile work place.

NP. We'll see what the judge says, but formal complaints were made by a number of women who are on the record describing specific incidents and saying working with him was horrible (some even saying it was the worst professional experience they'd ever had).

Anyway, there's no point in arguing with Justin stans who incessantly cherrypick and make sweeping assertions based on nothing.

There’s so much bad information on here. No one made any formal complaints, including Blake. That’s why a key question in her case and one the judge asked repeatedly during oral arguments is “what was the protected activity?” For the record, Gottlieb’s response was that it was Blake’s refusal to go to the premiere with Baldoni. Her case is about as thin as a blade of grass. Lively supporters should brace for much of this to get kicked.

This is demonstrably untrue. Why do you keep gaslighting?

Empire Waist:
Accusations by Director: Claire Ayoub, who directed Empire Waist (a film produced by Baldoni's company, Wayfarer Studios), alleged that she experienced "repeated, negative interactions" with Baldoni and his associates, including "verbal abuse".
Request to Ban from Set: Due to these interactions, Ayoub requested that Baldoni "not be permitted" on set during the majority of the 25-day production in Syracuse, NY.
Marketing Restrictions: Ayoub further requested that Baldoni not be involved in the film's marketing or public relations efforts.

IEWU:
During Filming (May 2023): Lively first reported her concerns regarding "unwelcome and inappropriate behavior" by Baldoni and Heath to a Sony representative. Another female cast member also reported similar concerns around the same time.
Post-WGA Strike (January 2024): Before filming resumed after the writers' strike, a meeting was held to address the "hostile work environment". Lively, accompanied by her husband Ryan Reynolds, presented a list of 30 protections to Wayfarer Studios, Baldoni's production company. These included stipulations such as "no more improvising of kissing" and "no more personal, physical touching of, or sexual comments by, Mr Baldoni or Mr Heath to be tolerated".

You said a formal complaint. That means a complaint made pursuant to a formal HR procedure. No evidence that Claire did that, nor did Blake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess that Blake bots REALLY don’t want to talk about the fact that she lied again about the dancing scene, because she consented to the kiss.

Every day another Blake lie revealed. Plaintiffs with credibility issues don’t do well with juries.

Is there a link/timestamp to this?

You can watch it in this short clip. The video description includes links to entertainment publications which themselves have links to submissions by Baldoni’s counsel. The script allegedly did not include the kiss that Lively improvs in this scene with JB.

She’s full of sh!t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess that Blake bots REALLY don’t want to talk about the fact that she lied again about the dancing scene, because she consented to the kiss.

Every day another Blake lie revealed. Plaintiffs with credibility issues don’t do well with juries.

Is there a link/timestamp to this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eleanor the Great is on Netflix. Another Wayfarer & Sony collaboration with scarjo as director and Justin as EP. Seems like everyone managed to get on just fine once you removed one person from the equation. As Steve Sarowitz said, “everyone’s nice, and then there’s Blake.”

Even Justin wouldn't stoop to leering at a 90-year-old and calling her sexy.

You’re a contemptible a-hole on a few levels.

I think PP meant his a-holery at least has some limits, aka respect for elders. At least I'm hoping Squibb wouldn't be among the TEN women who went on the record about his series of offensive behaviors.

At least half of those women had nothing to do with Blake, and went on the record independently. But the Justin stans have no answer for why they would do that except, maybe just maybe, he is a sexist creep who enjoys exerting power over women. I wish I could wipe my memory clean of how he discussed a *teenage sex scene* with that poor young actress. Glad Blake succeeded in getting some of the more prurient, unauthorized scenes scrubbed.

No one cares about the other women because none of their allegations have any substance. Meanwhile, Blake’s claims fall apart by the hour.

Right. That many claims about hostile work environment do not come out of nowhere. I bet you consider yourself a feminist, which is a joke. The fact that no one from that set, or the prior one with complaints, is going on the record to defend him speaks VOLUMES.

The fact that the complaints are not limited to the IEWU set is important for establishing a pattern. No one can claim Blake's undue influence in the former case. Complaints about Justin necessitating his removal from another set are highly relevant.

NP. I'm not following this super closely, but the pattern of offensive behavior toward women on two different sets plus the timing of hiring someone to "shine a light on BL and RR" right when the complaints about Baldoni started coming out (suggesting retaliation) seems to constitute a credible case. I'll be very curious to see how it plays out.

I'm not a lawyer of course, but I don't understand the independent contractor argument. If she fulfilled the duties of executive producer, and was credited as such, she's an employee of the production company (Sony), right? Please clarify if I'm missing how this works in employment laws. Also, is this a point Baldoni's lawyers are pursuing or just something being tossed around on social media?

This has been explained many times on this thread. There isn’t really a strong pattern of offensive behavior.

Blake and Jenny clearly had a problem with Baldoni and Heath but people are doubting whether it will meet the definition of sexual harassment. A lot of Blake’s claims have fallen apart now that we’ve seen video and text message and documentation, etc. Jenny’s claims were very vague and didn’t seem to be about SH.

Claire A never actually met Baldoni, she worked with wayfarer on another project and there was disagreement on set, but not harassment claims.

Liz worked with Justin on 124 episodes ever several years of their man enough podcast, dramatically quitting when the New York Times article hit, and then partnering in a production company with Ryan Reynolds so it looks a little suspect

Isabel seem to really like Justin as video and text show, admitting in her deposition that she didn’t have a problem onset, but then later revisiting things had problems. This looks sketchy because Blake styled her, had her over for sleepovers, flew her to private events, and pushed for her to get an introducing credit.

Colleen Hoover also seemed to be fine with Justin until Blake got involved. Admitting in her deposition when asked why she unfollowed Justin, she said because Blake told me too.

Blake didn’t seem to have a lot of substance so she tried to pump up the volume of claims, but they tend to fall apart. The main question I have is why she was referring to Justin with such distain very early on, mocking him to others, calling him names, etc., all while leaving him very flattering voice notes, and texts as if they were really close - and this was before she had any allegations so just not sure why she hated him so much from the start. and that really has me questioning this whole case.

Wait. Claire Ayoub definitely met Justin. The disagreement on her set was with Justin.

One of Jenny's claims was Justin calling actresses (including Jenny) "sexy" on set even after Jenny had told him it was inappropriate to do so. That is definitely related to SH.

You didn't mention Alex Saks.

Also Colleen testified that her issues with Justin started before she'd ever even had a conversation with Blake.

I think it's more nuanced than you are presenting. I don't know if Blake really has a case or not and am waiting to see what the judge decides on the summary judgment motion, but it's not as lopsided as you are presenting it. There were definitely multiple women who were uncomfortable around Justin or felt his behavior was, at minimum, sexist. You can be sexist or hard to work with and not sexually harass someone, of course. But this case seems to come down to a matter of degree and interpretation.

What you describe above is not actionable as sexual harassment or hostile work place.

NP. We'll see what the judge says, but formal complaints were made by a number of women who are on the record describing specific incidents and saying working with him was horrible (some even saying it was the worst professional experience they'd ever had).

Anyway, there's no point in arguing with Justin stans who incessantly cherrypick and make sweeping assertions based on nothing.

There’s so much bad information on here. No one made any formal complaints, including Blake. That’s why a key question in her case and one the judge asked repeatedly during oral arguments is “what was the protected activity?” For the record, Gottlieb’s response was that it was Blake’s refusal to go to the premiere with Baldoni. Her case is about as thin as a blade of grass. Lively supporters should brace for much of this to get kicked.

This is demonstrably untrue. Why do you keep gaslighting?

Empire Waist:
Accusations by Director: Claire Ayoub, who directed Empire Waist (a film produced by Baldoni's company, Wayfarer Studios), alleged that she experienced "repeated, negative interactions" with Baldoni and his associates, including "verbal abuse".
Request to Ban from Set: Due to these interactions, Ayoub requested that Baldoni "not be permitted" on set during the majority of the 25-day production in Syracuse, NY.
Marketing Restrictions: Ayoub further requested that Baldoni not be involved in the film's marketing or public relations efforts.

IEWU:
During Filming (May 2023): Lively first reported her concerns regarding "unwelcome and inappropriate behavior" by Baldoni and Heath to a Sony representative. Another female cast member also reported similar concerns around the same time.
Post-WGA Strike (January 2024): Before filming resumed after the writers' strike, a meeting was held to address the "hostile work environment". Lively, accompanied by her husband Ryan Reynolds, presented a list of 30 protections to Wayfarer Studios, Baldoni's production company. These included stipulations such as "no more improvising of kissing" and "no more personal, physical touching of, or sexual comments by, Mr Baldoni or Mr Heath to be tolerated".

Anonymous wrote:I guess that Blake bots REALLY don’t want to talk about the fact that she lied again about the dancing scene, because she consented to the kiss.

Every day another Blake lie revealed. Plaintiffs with credibility issues don’t do well with juries.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eleanor the Great is on Netflix. Another Wayfarer & Sony collaboration with scarjo as director and Justin as EP. Seems like everyone managed to get on just fine once you removed one person from the equation. As Steve Sarowitz said, “everyone’s nice, and then there’s Blake.”

Even Justin wouldn't stoop to leering at a 90-year-old and calling her sexy.

You’re a contemptible a-hole on a few levels.

I think PP meant his a-holery at least has some limits, aka respect for elders. At least I'm hoping Squibb wouldn't be among the TEN women who went on the record about his series of offensive behaviors.

At least half of those women had nothing to do with Blake, and went on the record independently. But the Justin stans have no answer for why they would do that except, maybe just maybe, he is a sexist creep who enjoys exerting power over women. I wish I could wipe my memory clean of how he discussed a *teenage sex scene* with that poor young actress. Glad Blake succeeded in getting some of the more prurient, unauthorized scenes scrubbed.

No one cares about the other women because none of their allegations have any substance. Meanwhile, Blake’s claims fall apart by the hour.

Right. That many claims about hostile work environment do not come out of nowhere. I bet you consider yourself a feminist, which is a joke. The fact that no one from that set, or the prior one with complaints, is going on the record to defend him speaks VOLUMES.

The fact that the complaints are not limited to the IEWU set is important for establishing a pattern. No one can claim Blake's undue influence in the former case. Complaints about Justin necessitating his removal from another set are highly relevant.

NP. I'm not following this super closely, but the pattern of offensive behavior toward women on two different sets plus the timing of hiring someone to "shine a light on BL and RR" right when the complaints about Baldoni started coming out (suggesting retaliation) seems to constitute a credible case. I'll be very curious to see how it plays out.

I'm not a lawyer of course, but I don't understand the independent contractor argument. If she fulfilled the duties of executive producer, and was credited as such, she's an employee of the production company (Sony), right? Please clarify if I'm missing how this works in employment laws. Also, is this a point Baldoni's lawyers are pursuing or just something being tossed around on social media?

This has been explained many times on this thread. There isn’t really a strong pattern of offensive behavior.

Blake and Jenny clearly had a problem with Baldoni and Heath but people are doubting whether it will meet the definition of sexual harassment. A lot of Blake’s claims have fallen apart now that we’ve seen video and text message and documentation, etc. Jenny’s claims were very vague and didn’t seem to be about SH.

Claire A never actually met Baldoni, she worked with wayfarer on another project and there was disagreement on set, but not harassment claims.

Liz worked with Justin on 124 episodes ever several years of their man enough podcast, dramatically quitting when the New York Times article hit, and then partnering in a production company with Ryan Reynolds so it looks a little suspect

Isabel seem to really like Justin as video and text show, admitting in her deposition that she didn’t have a problem onset, but then later revisiting things had problems. This looks sketchy because Blake styled her, had her over for sleepovers, flew her to private events, and pushed for her to get an introducing credit.

Colleen Hoover also seemed to be fine with Justin until Blake got involved. Admitting in her deposition when asked why she unfollowed Justin, she said because Blake told me too.

Blake didn’t seem to have a lot of substance so she tried to pump up the volume of claims, but they tend to fall apart. The main question I have is why she was referring to Justin with such distain very early on, mocking him to others, calling him names, etc., all while leaving him very flattering voice notes, and texts as if they were really close - and this was before she had any allegations so just not sure why she hated him so much from the start. and that really has me questioning this whole case.

Wait. Claire Ayoub definitely met Justin. The disagreement on her set was with Justin.

One of Jenny's claims was Justin calling actresses (including Jenny) "sexy" on set even after Jenny had told him it was inappropriate to do so. That is definitely related to SH.

You didn't mention Alex Saks.

Also Colleen testified that her issues with Justin started before she'd ever even had a conversation with Blake.

I think it's more nuanced than you are presenting. I don't know if Blake really has a case or not and am waiting to see what the judge decides on the summary judgment motion, but it's not as lopsided as you are presenting it. There were definitely multiple women who were uncomfortable around Justin or felt his behavior was, at minimum, sexist. You can be sexist or hard to work with and not sexually harass someone, of course. But this case seems to come down to a matter of degree and interpretation.

What you describe above is not actionable as sexual harassment or hostile work place.

NP. We'll see what the judge says, but formal complaints were made by a number of women who are on the record describing specific incidents and saying working with him was horrible (some even saying it was the worst professional experience they'd ever had).

Anyway, there's no point in arguing with Justin stans who incessantly cherrypick and make sweeping assertions based on nothing.

There’s so much bad information on here. No one made any formal complaints, including Blake. That’s why a key question in her case and one the judge asked repeatedly during oral arguments is “what was the protected activity?” For the record, Gottlieb’s response was that it was Blake’s refusal to go to the premiere with Baldoni. Her case is about as thin as a blade of grass. Lively supporters should brace for much of this to get kicked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eleanor the Great is on Netflix. Another Wayfarer & Sony collaboration with scarjo as director and Justin as EP. Seems like everyone managed to get on just fine once you removed one person from the equation. As Steve Sarowitz said, “everyone’s nice, and then there’s Blake.”

Even Justin wouldn't stoop to leering at a 90-year-old and calling her sexy.

You’re a contemptible a-hole on a few levels.

I think PP meant his a-holery at least has some limits, aka respect for elders. At least I'm hoping Squibb wouldn't be among the TEN women who went on the record about his series of offensive behaviors.

At least half of those women had nothing to do with Blake, and went on the record independently. But the Justin stans have no answer for why they would do that except, maybe just maybe, he is a sexist creep who enjoys exerting power over women. I wish I could wipe my memory clean of how he discussed a *teenage sex scene* with that poor young actress. Glad Blake succeeded in getting some of the more prurient, unauthorized scenes scrubbed.

No one cares about the other women because none of their allegations have any substance. Meanwhile, Blake’s claims fall apart by the hour.

Right. That many claims about hostile work environment do not come out of nowhere. I bet you consider yourself a feminist, which is a joke. The fact that no one from that set, or the prior one with complaints, is going on the record to defend him speaks VOLUMES.

The fact that the complaints are not limited to the IEWU set is important for establishing a pattern. No one can claim Blake's undue influence in the former case. Complaints about Justin necessitating his removal from another set are highly relevant.

NP. I'm not following this super closely, but the pattern of offensive behavior toward women on two different sets plus the timing of hiring someone to "shine a light on BL and RR" right when the complaints about Baldoni started coming out (suggesting retaliation) seems to constitute a credible case. I'll be very curious to see how it plays out.

I'm not a lawyer of course, but I don't understand the independent contractor argument. If she fulfilled the duties of executive producer, and was credited as such, she's an employee of the production company (Sony), right? Please clarify if I'm missing how this works in employment laws. Also, is this a point Baldoni's lawyers are pursuing or just something being tossed around on social media?

This has been explained many times on this thread. There isn’t really a strong pattern of offensive behavior.

Blake and Jenny clearly had a problem with Baldoni and Heath but people are doubting whether it will meet the definition of sexual harassment. A lot of Blake’s claims have fallen apart now that we’ve seen video and text message and documentation, etc. Jenny’s claims were very vague and didn’t seem to be about SH.

Claire A never actually met Baldoni, she worked with wayfarer on another project and there was disagreement on set, but not harassment claims.

Liz worked with Justin on 124 episodes ever several years of their man enough podcast, dramatically quitting when the New York Times article hit, and then partnering in a production company with Ryan Reynolds so it looks a little suspect

Isabel seem to really like Justin as video and text show, admitting in her deposition that she didn’t have a problem onset, but then later revisiting things had problems. This looks sketchy because Blake styled her, had her over for sleepovers, flew her to private events, and pushed for her to get an introducing credit.

Colleen Hoover also seemed to be fine with Justin until Blake got involved. Admitting in her deposition when asked why she unfollowed Justin, she said because Blake told me too.

Blake didn’t seem to have a lot of substance so she tried to pump up the volume of claims, but they tend to fall apart. The main question I have is why she was referring to Justin with such distain very early on, mocking him to others, calling him names, etc., all while leaving him very flattering voice notes, and texts as if they were really close - and this was before she had any allegations so just not sure why she hated him so much from the start. and that really has me questioning this whole case.

Wait. Claire Ayoub definitely met Justin. The disagreement on her set was with Justin.

One of Jenny's claims was Justin calling actresses (including Jenny) "sexy" on set even after Jenny had told him it was inappropriate to do so. That is definitely related to SH.

You didn't mention Alex Saks.

Also Colleen testified that her issues with Justin started before she'd ever even had a conversation with Blake.

I think it's more nuanced than you are presenting. I don't know if Blake really has a case or not and am waiting to see what the judge decides on the summary judgment motion, but it's not as lopsided as you are presenting it. There were definitely multiple women who were uncomfortable around Justin or felt his behavior was, at minimum, sexist. You can be sexist or hard to work with and not sexually harass someone, of course. But this case seems to come down to a matter of degree and interpretation.

What you describe above is not actionable as sexual harassment or hostile work place.

NP. We'll see what the judge says, but formal complaints were made by a number of women who are on the record describing specific incidents and saying working with him was horrible (some even saying it was the worst professional experience they'd ever had).

Anyway, there's no point in arguing with Justin stans who incessantly cherrypick and make sweeping assertions based on nothing.

There’s so much bad information on here. No one made any formal complaints, including Blake. That’s why a key question in her case and one the judge asked repeatedly during oral arguments is “what was the protected activity?” For the record, Gottlieb’s response was that it was Blake’s refusal to go to the premiere with Baldoni. Her case is about as thin as a blade of grass. Lively supporters should brace for much of this to get kicked.

Anonymous wrote:Can we ignore the poster rejecting all the hostile work environment evidence? She reasons like a child and it's not worth anyone's time to argue with a simple brick wall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we ignore the poster rejecting all the hostile work environment evidence? She reasons like a child and it's not worth anyone's time to argue with a simple brick wall.

There are multiple posters rejecting that but nice try.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eleanor the Great is on Netflix. Another Wayfarer & Sony collaboration with scarjo as director and Justin as EP. Seems like everyone managed to get on just fine once you removed one person from the equation. As Steve Sarowitz said, “everyone’s nice, and then there’s Blake.”

Even Justin wouldn't stoop to leering at a 90-year-old and calling her sexy.

You’re a contemptible a-hole on a few levels.

I think PP meant his a-holery at least has some limits, aka respect for elders. At least I'm hoping Squibb wouldn't be among the TEN women who went on the record about his series of offensive behaviors.

At least half of those women had nothing to do with Blake, and went on the record independently. But the Justin stans have no answer for why they would do that except, maybe just maybe, he is a sexist creep who enjoys exerting power over women. I wish I could wipe my memory clean of how he discussed a *teenage sex scene* with that poor young actress. Glad Blake succeeded in getting some of the more prurient, unauthorized scenes scrubbed.

No one cares about the other women because none of their allegations have any substance. Meanwhile, Blake’s claims fall apart by the hour.

Right. That many claims about hostile work environment do not come out of nowhere. I bet you consider yourself a feminist, which is a joke. The fact that no one from that set, or the prior one with complaints, is going on the record to defend him speaks VOLUMES.

The fact that the complaints are not limited to the IEWU set is important for establishing a pattern. No one can claim Blake's undue influence in the former case. Complaints about Justin necessitating his removal from another set are highly relevant.

NP. I'm not following this super closely, but the pattern of offensive behavior toward women on two different sets plus the timing of hiring someone to "shine a light on BL and RR" right when the complaints about Baldoni started coming out (suggesting retaliation) seems to constitute a credible case. I'll be very curious to see how it plays out.

I'm not a lawyer of course, but I don't understand the independent contractor argument. If she fulfilled the duties of executive producer, and was credited as such, she's an employee of the production company (Sony), right? Please clarify if I'm missing how this works in employment laws. Also, is this a point Baldoni's lawyers are pursuing or just something being tossed around on social media?

This has been explained many times on this thread. There isn’t really a strong pattern of offensive behavior.

Blake and Jenny clearly had a problem with Baldoni and Heath but people are doubting whether it will meet the definition of sexual harassment. A lot of Blake’s claims have fallen apart now that we’ve seen video and text message and documentation, etc. Jenny’s claims were very vague and didn’t seem to be about SH.

Claire A never actually met Baldoni, she worked with wayfarer on another project and there was disagreement on set, but not harassment claims.

Liz worked with Justin on 124 episodes ever several years of their man enough podcast, dramatically quitting when the New York Times article hit, and then partnering in a production company with Ryan Reynolds so it looks a little suspect

Isabel seem to really like Justin as video and text show, admitting in her deposition that she didn’t have a problem onset, but then later revisiting things had problems. This looks sketchy because Blake styled her, had her over for sleepovers, flew her to private events, and pushed for her to get an introducing credit.

Colleen Hoover also seemed to be fine with Justin until Blake got involved. Admitting in her deposition when asked why she unfollowed Justin, she said because Blake told me too.

Blake didn’t seem to have a lot of substance so she tried to pump up the volume of claims, but they tend to fall apart. The main question I have is why she was referring to Justin with such distain very early on, mocking him to others, calling him names, etc., all while leaving him very flattering voice notes, and texts as if they were really close - and this was before she had any allegations so just not sure why she hated him so much from the start. and that really has me questioning this whole case.

Wait. Claire Ayoub definitely met Justin. The disagreement on her set was with Justin.

One of Jenny's claims was Justin calling actresses (including Jenny) "sexy" on set even after Jenny had told him it was inappropriate to do so. That is definitely related to SH.

You didn't mention Alex Saks.

Also Colleen testified that her issues with Justin started before she'd ever even had a conversation with Blake.

I think it's more nuanced than you are presenting. I don't know if Blake really has a case or not and am waiting to see what the judge decides on the summary judgment motion, but it's not as lopsided as you are presenting it. There were definitely multiple women who were uncomfortable around Justin or felt his behavior was, at minimum, sexist. You can be sexist or hard to work with and not sexually harass someone, of course. But this case seems to come down to a matter of degree and interpretation.

What you describe above is not actionable as sexual harassment or hostile work place.

NP. We'll see what the judge says, but formal complaints were made by a number of women who are on the record describing specific incidents and saying working with him was horrible (some even saying it was the worst professional experience they'd ever had).

Anyway, there's no point in arguing with Justin stans who incessantly cherrypick and make sweeping assertions based on nothing.

Anonymous wrote:Can we ignore the poster rejecting all the hostile work environment evidence? She reasons like a child and it's not worth anyone's time to argue with a simple brick wall.

Anonymous wrote:Can we ignore the poster rejecting all the hostile work environment evidence? She reasons like a child and it's not worth anyone's time to argue with a simple brick wall.