Show summary Hide summary
Blake Lively’s lawsuit against Justin Baldoni has been narrowed by a federal judge, but the case is far from over. A Manhattan court tossed her sexual harassment claims while allowing a jury to weigh whether Mr. Baldoni or his team retaliated against her after she complained. The decision sets the stage for a May trial that will test competing versions of how the film’s behind-the-scenes drama played out online.
Judge limits scope but keeps retaliation claim alive
On April 2, Judge Lewis J. Liman issued a detailed ruling in Federal District Court in Manhattan. The judge dismissed Lively’s sexual harassment allegations as legally insufficient.
Spirit elite status: claim a status match from these airlines now
John Cena teases history-making WWE Backlash role
However, he allowed a narrower claim to proceed: that actions taken after Lively complained amounted to retaliation. That claim will go to a jury unless the parties settle first.
Why the court drew a line between harassment and retaliation
The opinion runs more than 150 pages. It distinguishes between protected responses and conduct that could be punitive.
Key legal reasoning
- Judge Liman recognized some defensive steps are expected when an accusation surfaces.
- He warned that those steps can cross into retaliatory acts if aimed at harming the accuser’s career.
- The court found enough evidence of such a plan to let a jury decide.
The judge said a reaction intended to destroy Lively’s credibility and professional standing could be seen as retaliation.
What Blake Lively alleges happened on set
Lively filed suit in December 2024. She says she complained after an incident in a trailer where Jamey Heath, a Wayfarer partner, stared at her bare breasts.
- She points to private messages she viewed as sexualizing her.
- She describes on-set comments suggesting she had not watched pornography.
- She accuses Baldoni of hiring a crisis PR team to steer social media against her.
Her complaint claims the PR effort went beyond reputation management and aimed to damage her professionally.
Justin Baldoni’s response and past filings
Baldoni’s lawyers deny the harassment claims. They say the PR work was meant to protect his reputation.
- He has argued the communications were defensive, not destructive.
- He previously sued Lively for defamation over comments to the New York Times.
- A judge dismissed that counter-suit last June.
What jurors will be asked to decide in May
The upcoming trial will not re-litigate every allegation. It will focus on the narrower question of retaliation.
- Did the crisis PR campaign amplify a narrative intentionally crafted to harm Lively?
- Were internal messages or actions aimed at destroying her reputation?
- Did the conduct cause professional or financial harm?
The court’s ruling limits what evidence and theories Lively’s team can present at trial. But it leaves important factual disputes for jurors to resolve.
Practical stakes and possible outcomes
A jury finding of retaliation could lead to damages and further legal exposure for Wayfarer and associated parties.
- Settlement remains possible before a May trial date.
- Witness testimony, internal messages, and PR records are likely to be central.
- The litigation will shape public narratives around the film and its promotion.
