Creative artists must have space to experiment without fear of liability
In a Manhattan federal courtroom, a judge has drawn a careful legal line between what the law can protect and what it cannot — at least under current statute. Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against director Justin Baldoni were dismissed not because the alleged conduct was deemed acceptable, but because her status as an independent contractor placed her outside the reach of Title VII's employee protections. What survives, and heads to a May jury trial, is a question perhaps more consequential: whether those with power in creative industries may punish those who dare to object.
- A federal judge dismissed Lively's sexual harassment claims, ruling that her contractor status — not the merits of her allegations — placed her beyond Title VII's legal shield.
- The alleged on-set conduct, including unwanted touching and pressure to film nude scenes with an open set, remains part of the record and will reach the jury as supporting context.
- The retaliation claim carries the case's real weight: Lively alleges Baldoni's production company orchestrated a coordinated smear campaign specifically to punish her for raising safety concerns.
- Baldoni's own countersuits — accusing Lively and Ryan Reynolds of defamation and extortion — were dismissed last June, narrowing the battlefield considerably.
- With trial set for May 18, the jury will not rule on harassment itself, but on whether retaliation and breach of contract occurred — a distinction legal in form but human in consequence.
A federal judge in Manhattan has allowed Blake Lively's case against Justin Baldoni to move toward a May 18 trial, though on narrower legal ground than she originally sought. Her sexual harassment claims were dismissed Thursday — not because the alleged conduct was found acceptable, but because Lively was classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee, placing her outside the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The judge's written decision nonetheless laid out the substance of her allegations in detail: that Baldoni leaned in as if to kiss her, rubbed his face against her neck, flicked her lower lip, and made comments about her appearance after asking her to remove her jacket. When told the remark was inappropriate, he allegedly rolled his eyes and said, 'Sorry, I missed the sexual harassment training.' The judge acknowledged such conduct would ordinarily constitute a hostile work environment — but reasoned that the physical contact occurred during a scripted slow-dancing scene, affording some creative latitude.
What survived dismissal carries considerable weight. Two retaliation claims against Wayfarer Studios and It Ends With Us Movie LLC will proceed to trial, along with a breach of contract claim. The judge found that a jury could reasonably conclude Baldoni's company sought not merely to damage Lively's reputation, but to destroy her career — specifically in response to her raising safety concerns on set. Lively has described the resulting smear campaign as devastating.
The film itself opened to a $50 million weekend in August 2024, but was quickly overshadowed by public speculation about conflict between its star and director. Baldoni had countersued Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds for defamation and extortion; those claims were dismissed last June.
At trial, the jury will not be asked to rule on sexual harassment under federal law. They will instead weigh whether retaliation occurred and whether a contractual agreement was breached — but in doing so, they will hear testimony about the conduct Lively described. The legal frame has shifted; the human story has not.
A federal judge in Manhattan has cleared the way for Blake Lively's case against Justin Baldoni to proceed to trial, though not quite in the form she originally filed it. Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed her sexual harassment claims on Thursday, but preserved three other claims—including a potent retaliation allegation—that will allow a jury to hear much of what she says happened on the set of "It Ends With Us" anyway. The trial is scheduled for May 18.
Lively, who starred in and produced the film adaptation of Colleen Hoover's domestic violence novel, sued her co-star and director in December 2024. The crux of the judge's reasoning was straightforward: Lively was an independent contractor, not an employee, which meant she fell outside the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That federal law prohibits employment discrimination, including on the basis of gender, but it applies to employees. Without that classification, her sexual harassment claims could not proceed under that statute.
Yet the judge's written decision reveals the substance of what Lively alleged. During filming, she claimed Baldoni leaned in as if to kiss her, kissed her forehead, rubbed his face and mouth against her neck, put his thumb to her mouth and flicked her lower lip, caressed her, and leaned into her neck while saying her scent was pleasant. The judge acknowledged that such conduct would ordinarily constitute a hostile work environment if it occurred in a factory or office. But he reasoned that Baldoni was acting in a scene—specifically a slow dancing sequence—and that his behavior, while uncomfortable, fell within the bounds of what might reasonably occur between two characters in such a moment. "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," Liman wrote.
But the judge also noted other details that painted a different picture. Baldoni once called Lively "pretty hot" after asking her to remove her jacket, exposing a lace bra. When warned that the comment was inappropriate and distracting, he allegedly rolled his eyes and said, "Sorry, I missed the sexual harassment training." In another instance, Baldoni pushed for Lively to perform a birth scene nude, and when it was filmed, the set remained open to nonessential personnel for several hours. These moments, the judge suggested, could support the retaliation claims that survived dismissal.
The retaliation claim is where the case gains real weight. The judge found that evidence might allow a jury to conclude that Baldoni's production company, Wayfarer Studios, not only sought to damage Lively's reputation but aimed to destroy her career—specifically out of fear that she would file a discrimination complaint. Lively has alleged that a smear campaign has been "devastating for her reputation and career." Two retaliation claims against Wayfarer Studios and It Ends With Us Movie LLC survived the ruling, as did a third claim alleging breach of a contract rider agreement.
The case has been shadowed by broader context since the film's August 2024 release. "It Ends With Us" exceeded box office expectations with a $50 million opening weekend, but speculation about discord between Lively and Baldoni hung over the release. Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios had countersued Lively and her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, accusing them of defamation and extortion. The judge dismissed those counterclaims last June.
In a statement, Lively's attorney Sigrid McCawley said her client "looks forward to testifying at trial and continuing to shine a light on this vicious form of online retaliation so that it become easier to detect and fight." She emphasized that the case has always centered on "the devastating retaliation and the extraordinary steps the defendants took to destroy Blake Lively's reputation because she stood up for safety on the set." Bryan Freedman, representing Baldoni, countered that his clients are "very good people who have not engaged in this sexual harassment as alleged" and called the ruling gratifying confirmation of what his legal team believed from the start.
What emerges from the judge's decision is a case that has shifted its legal footing but retained its factual substance. The jury will not be asked to decide whether Baldoni sexually harassed Lively under Title VII. Instead, they will be asked whether he and his company retaliated against her for raising safety concerns, and whether they breached a contractual agreement. But in answering those questions, they will hear testimony about the conduct Lively described—the unwanted touching, the inappropriate comments, the filming practices she objected to. The trial will focus on what happened after she objected, not on the objectionable conduct itself.
Citas Notables
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.— Judge Lewis J. Liman
This case has always been and will remain focused on the devastating retaliation and the extraordinary steps the defendants took to destroy Blake Lively's reputation because she stood up for safety on the set.— Sigrid McCawley, Lively's attorney
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
So the judge threw out the sexual harassment case entirely?
Not entirely. He dismissed it as a Title VII claim—the federal employment law—because Lively was a contractor, not an employee. But the jury will still hear about all that conduct as evidence supporting the retaliation claims.
That seems like a distinction without a difference.
It matters legally, but you're right that practically, the jury hears the same allegations. The difference is what they're asked to decide. They're not deciding "was this sexual harassment?" They're deciding "did they retaliate against her for complaining about safety?"
And the judge thought the conduct was acceptable because it was acting?
He said it was within bounds for a slow dancing scene. But he also noted the other stuff—calling her "pretty hot," the eye roll about sexual harassment training, pushing for a nude birth scene with an open set. Those details cut the other way.
So what's actually going to trial?
Retaliation claims and a breach of contract claim. The theory is that after she raised concerns, they orchestrated a smear campaign to destroy her career and reputation. That's what May 18 will be about.
And Baldoni's countersuit?
Already dismissed last June. The judge didn't find merit to the defamation and extortion claims against Lively and Ryan Reynolds.