For those of you without twitter, here's the excerpts from the opinion:

When Lively first met with Baldoni in December 2022 to discuss possibly participating in the Film, R.56.1 11 74, 436, Baldoni told Lively—who was pregnant with her first boy at the time— that he was circumcised, Shapiro Decl., Ex. 24 at 51:21-52:05; R.56.1 9 75. Lively found the disclosure uncomfortable and unnecessary, but it occurred in the context of a discussion about the "different medical decisions people make these days, including circumcision for male babies," a topic that Lively herself may have introduced. Shapiro Decl., Ex. 24 at 51:21-52:05; R.56.1 9 75. More importantly, it occurred before she began working on the Film. It therefore could not have created a hostile work environment. See Velez v. N.Y.C. Police Pension Fund Article II, 2019 WL 1382884, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2019) ("[A]ny incidents giving rise to the hostile work environment claim must have occurred during the plaintiff's employment.").


at certain roles as athletic events. And this is one of them.... And that's great," R.56.1 9 37;
Shapiro Decl., Ex. 44. Given these statements, Baldoni's actions even if they could be viewed
as gently pushing Lively to lose weight, which is not necessarily supported by the evidence-
could not fairly be described as discrimination "because of" Lively's gender.

Under this framing, it would be difficult to view Baldoni's conduct as reflecting hostility or bias based on gender. He was acting in the scene.
Assuming he was improvising, the conduct was not so far beyond what might reasonably be expected to take place between two characters during a slow dancing scene such that an inference of hostile treatment on the basis of sex would arise. At least in isolation, the conduct was directed to Lively's character rather than to Lively herself. Creative artists, no less than comedy room writers, must have some amount of space to experiment within the bounds of an agreed script
without fear of being held liable for sexual harassment. See Lyle, 132 P.3d at 225.

Other conduct, particularly viewed in isolation, also would not give rise to a claim for
hostile work environment. Prior to principal filming, Baldoni proposed certain edits to the
screenplay, including ones related to sex, that Lively believed were "gratuitous." R.56.1 9 92.
That Baldoni suggested scenes involving sexual acts in the context of developing a motion picture involving such adult themes did not create a "sexually objectionable environment" or an environment hostile to women (or to men) because of sex. It would be "neither surprising nor unreasonable from a creative standpoint" for both Baldoni and Lively to have drafted sexually explicit material, even if some of it was not to the taste of the other. See Lyle, 132 P.3d at 225 (Cal. 2006). Indeed, Giannetti had written to Baldoni that Sony was "going to try and get as much tasteful hot sex as you can." Shapiro Decl., Ex. 84.26

As far as SH, Liman did not credit the circumcision comment, the drafting of sex scenes, the inquiry about her weight, and the dance scene as amounting to SH.

He did leave open the possibility that the "sexy" comments, looking at her while undressed, the birth scene, and announcing Lively had never seen pornography could form a reasonable basis for SH. He sidestepped the Heath birth video and didn't mention the conversation where Baldoni said he didn't always ask for consent.

That's pretty fair and along the lines of stuff I've argued in this thread as a neutral/accused of being Blake bot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't it dismissed because she was determined to be an independent contractor and not an employee?

Partially but he had facts that would have let him write a legally defensible argument either way on the issue of whether she was an independent contracto. I don’t think he would have gotten rid of all her sexual harassment allegations if he felt they were strong and deserving of a remedy, and his statements at the hearing made clear he didn’t think her harassment claims were strong.

The Blake stans are making it sound like it's all because she's an independent contractor.

Look at the post above, he directly addressed the merits of her sexual harassment claims.

I know, I'm pointing out that the Blake stans are delusional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't it dismissed because she was determined to be an independent contractor and not an employee?

Partially but he had facts that would have let him write a legally defensible argument either way on the issue of whether she was an independent contracto. I don’t think he would have gotten rid of all her sexual harassment allegations if he felt they were strong and deserving of a remedy, and his statements at the hearing made clear he didn’t think her harassment claims were strong.

The Blake stans are making it sound like it's all because she's an independent contractor.

Look at the post above, he directly addressed the merits of her sexual harassment claims.

I am sure it will be a relief for Blake to get back to her next tour de force role. Lilly Flower Bloom was just the beginning.

Comment from Lipstick Alley that made me lol: This whole case was literally Blake Lively fantasizing about this man harassing her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't it dismissed because she was determined to be an independent contractor and not an employee?

Partially but he had facts that would have let him write a legally defensible argument either way on the issue of whether she was an independent contracto. I don’t think he would have gotten rid of all her sexual harassment allegations if he felt they were strong and deserving of a remedy, and his statements at the hearing made clear he didn’t think her harassment claims were strong.

The Blake stans are making it sound like it's all because she's an independent contractor.

Multiple examples of the judge addressing the merit of Lively’s sexual harassment claims in the opinion and finding them to have fallen short. https://x.com/arias1867995424/status/2039846182705406451?s=61

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't it dismissed because she was determined to be an independent contractor and not an employee?

Partially but he had facts that would have let him write a legally defensible argument either way on the issue of whether she was an independent contracto. I don’t think he would have gotten rid of all her sexual harassment allegations if he felt they were strong and deserving of a remedy, and his statements at the hearing made clear he didn’t think her harassment claims were strong.

Wasn't it dismissed because she was determined to be an independent contractor and not an employee?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’ve been told for over a year that Baldoni’s lawyers were bozos and Blake’s geniuses, and yet Blake’s lawyers equally unable to plead actionable claims.

Wayfarer bringing in a competent attorney like Alexandra Shapiro made the difference.

I questioned the wisdom of them challenging the merits of the sexual harassment claims on summary judgment, generally that's a sure loser because whether the acts reasonably constitute sexual harassment is a question of fact for the jury. But they weren't trying to win on that basis, they were exposing the weakness of the sexual harassment claims so the judge would be comfortable dismissing them on questions of law. And it worked as the judge made pretty clear at the hearing that he viewed the allegations generally as disputes about how to handle filming of intimate scenes better addressed through contract law than actual sexual harassment. So yes, if she came up with that strategy, job very well done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We’ve been told for over a year that Baldoni’s lawyers were bozos and Blake’s geniuses, and yet Blake’s lawyers equally unable to plead actionable claims.

Wayfarer bringing in a competent attorney like Alexandra Shapiro made the difference.

That doesn’t change the fact the her lawyers made some poor choices when they drafted the pleadings.

Anonymous wrote:We’ve been told for over a year that Baldoni’s lawyers were bozos and Blake’s geniuses, and yet Blake’s lawyers equally unable to plead actionable claims.

Wayfarer bringing in a competent attorney like Alexandra Shapiro made the difference.

Other interesting nuggets based on prior discussion here.

The Court extensively quotes Blake's letter seeking producer credit in finding she was an independent contractor. Many of us predicted this letter would really harm her case.

The defamation claims against Freedman were dismissed.

All the individual defendants are now out of the case and face no personal financial responsibility for the remaining claims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems like a huge loss for Blake.

I'll acknowledge that but her SH case was weak and it might weirdly benefit her at trial if she only has to prove the retaliation part. It totally kicks out the need to make the jury understand they can find retaliation without finding SH. I am very curious to read the opinion.

From a pr standpoint, losing sexual harassment claims is a horrible result for her.

Losing them on a legal technicality = a huge win for Baldoni though.

Even NAG said the SH claims were a high bar and Lively was better off focusing on relation.

In
I don’t see how she can win on retaliation without legally viable sh claims. Their defense will be her attacks on them first.

And let’s not start revisionist history, there are hundreds of pages just on dcum of Blake bots arguing that the sexual harassment claims were strong.

Because you don’t understand the standard of proof for retaliation .

Also here are direct quotes from the opinion about the judges views on her sexual harassment claims.

“a jury could conclude that Lively opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment”

“there is sufficient evidence that it was reasonable for her to believe that the Wayfarer Parties sexually harassed her by creating a hostile work environment.”

“a person in her position could have understood the workplace to at times reflect a gendered and sexualized view of women”

“it was far from baseless.”

It’s you that is confused. She can argue that and they can argue her belief was unreasonable and even that she didn’t believe it to be sexual harassment and instead just made up allegations to hurt them. And the jury will be aware there are no sexual harassment claims for them to decide. I’m not sure she wants this trial given the further harm to her reputation and much more limited damages claim.

Again you do not understand the standard of proof of retaliation.

You literally quoted language from the opinion where the judge said it was for the jury to decide if her beliefs were reasonable (“ a jury could conclude .”). That means the other side can offer evidence why they were not. And regardless of standard of proof, the jury will be influenced by the fact that there are no claims of sexual harassment before them.

A claim of retaliation does not, and probably will not, address the sexual retaliation claims or whether there is sufficient proof of them. They only need to prove she engaged in protected activity (initiating a complaint) and that the defendants retaliated due to her complaint.

It would be nonsensical to believe that it is ok to retaliate if the hostile work environment or sexual harassment claims did not meet the legal standard. It is the act of being able to initiate a complaint about potential harassment or hostile work environment which is protected.

The federal retaliation claim was dismissed. Apparently California law is not identical and I don't profess to be an expert in it. You, however, specifically quoted language where the Court said it was for the jury to decide whether Lively's actions were motivated by a belief that sexual harassment had occurred.

I'm not commenting more without reading the entire opinion as I think it highly likely I will find abundant language favorable to the WF defendants given you only cite four random half sentences.