The same conduct in an office would have been actionable — the judge knew it.
On a Thursday morning in Manhattan, a federal judge handed both sides in the Blake Lively–Justin Baldoni lawsuit something to work with — and something to grieve. Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed Lively's sexual harassment claims outright, but kept three other claims alive, meaning a jury will still hear a substantial portion of what she has alleged when the trial opens on May 18.
The case traces back to the making of It Ends With Us, the film adaptation of Colleen Hoover's 2016 domestic violence novel that opened in August 2024 to a $50 million debut weekend. Almost from the moment it hit theaters, the production was shadowed by reports of serious tension between Lively and Baldoni, who co-starred and directed. Last December, Lively filed suit against Baldoni and other parties, raising more than a dozen claims including sexual harassment. Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, countersued Lively and her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, alleging defamation and extortion — though that countersuit was dismissed back in June.
The core of Judge Liman's Thursday ruling turned on a technical but consequential question: was Lively an employee or an independent contractor? He concluded she was the latter, which meant she could not bring sexual harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that bars employment discrimination on the basis of sex. That determination alone was enough to end that portion of her case.
But the judge went further, examining the substance of the harassment allegations on their own terms — and his analysis is where the ruling gets genuinely complicated. Lively alleged that during filming, Baldoni leaned in as though to kiss her, kissed her forehead, rubbed his face and mouth against her neck, pressed his thumb to her mouth, flicked her lower lip, caressed her, and leaned close to say her neck smelled good. Liman acknowledged plainly that this conduct, if it occurred in an office or on a factory floor, would support a hostile work environment claim without question. The problem, he wrote, was context: Baldoni was acting in a scene. The judge reasoned that the conduct was not so far outside what might plausibly occur between two characters during a slow-dance sequence that it could be read as hostility directed at Lively the person rather than her character. Creative artists, he wrote, need room to experiment within the bounds of an agreed script.
Not everything, however, fell under that umbrella. Three claims survived — two retaliation claims and one alleging breach of a contract rider agreement — and the judge made clear that some of the harassment allegations could still be aired before a jury in support of those surviving counts. The incidents he flagged were telling. After asking Lively to remove her jacket, exposing a lace bra, Baldoni allegedly said "pretty hot." When someone told him the comment was inappropriate, he reportedly rolled his eyes and said: "Sorry, I missed the sexual harassment training." In another instance, Baldoni allegedly pushed for Lively to perform a birth scene in the nude, and the scene was then filmed over several hours without clearing the set of non-essential crew. And in a separate moment, Baldoni volunteered to Lively that he had previously been addicted to pornography; when she said she had never seen pornography, he later repeated that disclosure to others on set. Judge Liman suggested that sharing personal experience, even of a sexual nature, might be defensible in a creative context — but broadcasting a colleague's private admission to the wider crew was a different matter.
Following the written ruling, lawyers from both sides joined a brief phone conference with the judge to begin discussing jury selection logistics. Neither legal team responded publicly to the ruling in the immediate aftermath.
What remains is a trial that, even stripped of the formal harassment claims, will put before a jury a detailed account of what Lively says happened on that set — and what she says happened afterward when she raised objections. The May 18 start date is now the fixed point on the horizon. Whatever the jury makes of the surviving claims, the proceedings are likely to prompt a broader conversation about where the line falls between creative license and professional accountability in film production.
Notable Quotes
Creative artists must have some amount of space to experiment within the bounds of an agreed script without fear of being held liable for sexual harassment.— Judge Lewis J. Liman, written ruling
Sorry, I missed the sexual harassment training.— Justin Baldoni, as alleged by Lively after he was told a comment was inappropriate
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
So the harassment claims are gone — does that mean Lively lost the core of her case?
Not exactly. The claims were dismissed on a technicality about her employment status, not because the judge found the conduct acceptable. He was actually quite clear that the same behavior in most workplaces would have been actionable.
What's the distinction he drew?
He said the conduct happened during filming, during a scene. Baldoni was acting. The judge's view was that actors improvising within a scene can't automatically be held liable for sexual harassment the way a manager in an office could be.
That feels like a significant carve-out for the film industry.
It does. And the judge seemed aware of the tension. He didn't say the conduct was fine — he said it couldn't be read, in isolation, as hostility toward Lively the person rather than her character.
But some things did survive. What made those different?
The things that survived weren't about the scene itself. Calling a colleague's exposed bra "pretty hot" and then mocking sexual harassment training when called out — that's not acting. Neither is announcing to the crew that your co-star has never seen pornography.
That last one is striking. Why does it matter that he told others?
Because she told him something private, and he made it public. The judge suggested that sharing personal experience in a creative conversation might be defensible, but repeating a colleague's disclosure to the wider set crosses into something else.
And the birth scene?
That one involves a naked performance filmed over several hours without clearing non-essential crew. The judge flagged it. It speaks to a question of professional control — whose comfort was being protected, and whose wasn't.
What does the jury actually get to decide now?
Three claims: two retaliation counts and a breach of contract claim. But the harassment allegations can still be introduced as evidence supporting those claims. The jury will hear a lot of what Lively alleged — just under a different legal frame.
What's the broader implication for how film sets operate?
That's the open question. This ruling gives directors and actors some legal breathing room for improvisation. But it also shows that room has edges — and that what happens off-camera, between takes, is still very much in scope.