Creative artists must have space to experiment without fear of liability
In a Manhattan courtroom, a federal judge has drawn a careful line between what the law can reach and what a jury must weigh: Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against director Justin Baldoni were dismissed on the technical grounds that she worked as an independent contractor, placing her outside the protections of federal employment law. Yet the case moves forward, carrying with it the more durable question of whether those who raise concerns about safety and dignity in the workplace — whatever their contractual status — can be made to pay for it through the deliberate destruction of their reputation. The trial, set for May, will ask not merely what happened on a film set, but what was done afterward, and why.
- A judge dismissed the sexual harassment claims at the heart of Lively's lawsuit, ruling that her contractor status placed her outside the reach of Title VII — a legal gap that leaves many gig and creative workers unprotected.
- The conduct described in court filings — unwanted physical contact, a birth scene filmed without a closed set, a director who responded to harassment warnings with a dismissive eye-roll — paints a picture of a workplace where safety concerns were met with contempt.
- Retaliation claims survived, with evidence suggesting Baldoni's team mounted a coordinated campaign to damage Lively's career specifically because she had raised those concerns — turning her advocacy into a liability.
- Lively's legal team frames the surviving claims as the true core of the case: not just what was done to her on set, but the orchestrated effort to silence and punish her for speaking up.
- With trial set for May 18, the proceedings may establish new precedent for how on-set conduct and post-complaint retaliation are judged in an industry where the line between performance and harassment has long been contested.
A federal judge in Manhattan has allowed Blake Lively's lawsuit against director Justin Baldoni to proceed to trial, though on narrower grounds than she originally sought. Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed her sexual harassment claims under Title VII, ruling that because Lively was an independent contractor on "It Ends With Us" rather than an employee, federal employment discrimination law did not cover her. Three other claims, including retaliation, survived and will go before a jury.
The dispute traces back to the August 2024 release of the film, an adaptation of Colleen Hoover's novel about domestic violence that opened to a $50 million debut amid swirling public tension between Lively, who starred and produced, and Baldoni, who directed and co-starred. Lively sued Baldoni and his company Wayfarer Studios, alleging unwanted physical contact and a hostile work environment. Baldoni countersued, accusing Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds of defamation and extortion — claims the judge dismissed last June.
In his ruling, Liman catalogued the specific conduct Lively described: Baldoni leaning in as if to kiss her, kissing her forehead, rubbing his face against her neck, and other physical contact she found unwanted. The judge acknowledged such behavior would ordinarily constitute harassment in a conventional workplace, but concluded that because it occurred during scripted scenes — including a slow dance sequence — it fell within the creative latitude afforded to performers. He wrote that artists must have room to experiment within an agreed script without automatic liability for harassment.
Still, the judge noted details that pointed beyond performance. Baldoni allegedly called Lively "pretty hot" after asking her to remove her jacket, and when told the remark was inappropriate, reportedly rolled his eyes and said, "Sorry, I missed the sexual harassment training." A birth scene was filmed over several hours without closing the set to nonessential personnel, violating standard industry protocols.
Those details now anchor the retaliation claims heading to trial. The judge found that a jury could reasonably conclude Baldoni's team had planned to damage — and potentially destroy — Lively's career in response to her raising safety concerns, fearing she might file a discrimination claim. Lively's attorney said her client looks forward to testifying and to exposing what she called a vicious campaign of online retaliation. The trial begins May 18, and its outcome may say as much about what happens after someone speaks up as about what happened on set.
A federal judge in Manhattan has cleared the way for Blake Lively's case against Justin Baldoni to proceed to trial, though not quite as she originally framed it. On Thursday, Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed her sexual harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, ruling that because Lively worked as an independent contractor on the film "It Ends With Us" rather than as an employee, federal employment discrimination law did not apply to her. But the judge left standing three other claims—including a retaliation charge—that will allow a jury to hear much of what Lively alleges happened on set when the film was shot.
The case began in December 2024, months after "It Ends With Us," an adaptation of Colleen Hoover's bestselling novel about domestic violence, opened in theaters in August with a $50 million debut. The film's release had been shadowed by public speculation about tension between its star and producer, Lively, and its director and co-star, Baldoni. Lively sued Baldoni and his production company, Wayfarer Studios, claiming he had subjected her to unwanted physical contact and created a hostile work environment. Baldoni and his company countersued, accusing Lively and her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, of defamation and extortion. The judge dismissed those counterclaims last June.
In his written ruling, Liman acknowledged the specific conduct Lively described: Baldoni leaning in as if to kiss her, kissing her forehead, rubbing his face and mouth against her neck, placing his thumb to her mouth and flicking her lower lip, caressing her, and leaning into her neck while saying "it smells good." The judge noted that such behavior would ordinarily constitute a hostile work environment if it occurred in a factory or office. But he determined that because Baldoni was acting in scenes—particularly a slow dancing sequence—the conduct fell within the bounds of what might reasonably be expected between two characters in a scripted film, and therefore did not rise to the level of sexual harassment. "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.
Yet the judge also noted details that suggested a pattern beyond the bounds of performance. Baldoni had 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 responded: "Sorry, I missed the sexual harassment training." The judge also cited a scene in which Baldoni pushed for Lively to perform a birth scene naked, and the scene was filmed over several hours without the set being closed to nonessential personnel—a breach of standard industry safety protocols.
These details matter because they support the retaliation claims that survived dismissal. Liman found that evidence might enable a jury to conclude that Baldoni's production company had planned not only to damage Lively's reputation but to destroy her career, motivated in part by fear that she would file a discrimination claim after raising safety concerns on set. Lively's attorney, Sigrid McCawley, said in a statement that her client "looks forward to testifying at trial and continuing to shine a light on this vicious form of online retaliation." McCawley 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."
The trial is scheduled for May 18. Baldoni's legal team did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The case now hinges on whether a jury will find that Lively's complaints about on-set conduct triggered a coordinated effort to harm her professionally—a question that may ultimately say less about what happened during filming than about what happened after.
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
Why did the judge dismiss the sexual harassment claims if he acknowledged the conduct actually happened?
Because Lively was a contractor, not an employee. Title VII—the main federal law against workplace harassment—only covers employees. The judge said that even if the conduct would be harassment in an office, it fell within the bounds of what actors might do in a scripted scene.
But the judge also mentioned the "pretty hot" comment and the birth scene filmed without a closed set. Those don't sound like acting.
Exactly. Those details don't support a sexual harassment claim under Title VII, but they do support retaliation. The judge is saying: maybe this wasn't harassment in the legal sense, but it does suggest a pattern of behavior that, combined with what happened after, points to retaliation.
So the jury will hear about all of it anyway?
Much of it, yes. The retaliation claims survived, which means the jury can consider the on-set conduct as context for whether Baldoni's team then launched a campaign to destroy her reputation.
What's the practical difference between a harassment case and a retaliation case?
In harassment, you're arguing the conduct itself was illegal. In retaliation, you're arguing that someone punished you for complaining about unsafe or inappropriate conditions. The facts overlap, but the legal theory is different.
And Lively raised safety concerns before the retaliation allegedly happened?
That's what she alleges. She stood up about the birth scene and other issues, and then—she claims—Baldoni's team worked to damage her career and reputation. That sequence is what the retaliation claim rests on.
Does this ruling help or hurt her case?
It's mixed. She lost the direct harassment claim, which is significant. But the retaliation claims survived, and they let a jury hear most of the same facts. The trial will focus on whether her complaints triggered a coordinated effort to harm her, which may actually be easier to prove than harassment.