Blake Lively suing Justin Baldoni for sexual harassment

[PrettyFlyforaMaiTai]

According to TMZ Blake Lively is suing Justin Baldoni for sexual harassment on the set of ‘It Ends With Us’.

According to the lawsuit, a meeting was held in regards to the hostile work environment. Blake demanded that Baldoni stop showing nude videos or images of women to her, no more mention of Baldoni's alleged previous "pornography addiction," no more discussions about sexual conquests in front of Blake and others, no further mentions of cast and crew's genitalia, no more inquiries about Blake's weight, and no further mention of Blake's dead father and no more adding of sex scenes, oral sex or on camera climaxing by Blake outside of the script Blake approved when signing onto the project.

Baldoni’s representative have denied the allegations and state this is an effort for Blake to rehabilitate her recent poor image.

www.tmz.com/2024/12/21/blake-lively-sues-justin-baldoni-sexual-harassment-retaliation-on-it-ends-with-us-set/

As a general point, I find it utterly horrifying that men (it wasn't just JB) making a film centered around abuse of women, used their power to sexually harass and abuse women working on that film.

And then set out to try and ruin BL's reputation and career as a safeguard incase she spoke out about their behaviour. It's just layers of compounding awfulness and it really makes me feel sick. When you read the messages in the lawsuit there's no excusing or minimising what went on, it was just utterly appalling.

It also really exposes the toxicity and despicable behaviour that goes on in Hollywood - from the rude and totally unprofessional messages sent by the PR team about each other and their clients, to the cynicism of JB deliberately using domestic abuse survivors as a shield to hide behind. It's just so grubby, false and horrible.

I’m watching the narrative on Reddit and wondering what Justin’s team has pivoted to.

If he’s still using astroturfing- and I can’t imagine he’s not, it seems to be:
Hope people haven’t read the suit and still talk about how insensitivity Blake marketed the film
Power imbalance between BL and JB because of Ryan Reynolds
Plantation wedding
BL was a bully on Gossip Girl
Blake Lively dedicated an entire blog to the Antibellum period and wants to bring back slavery (it was one post about how cutesy it is to be a southern belle a decade ago)
Oh and if all else fails: “I’m bored with this now”

Woah!

Thank you @Anothernamechane and @elessar , that's illuminating.

If you happen to have handy links for that I'd be grateful, but please don't go to any trouble for it.

Now that this cat is out of the bag, I suspect this is going to keep getting bigger.

I said on another thread, it's reminding me of the phone hacking scandal. It wasn't just Murdoch media who were at it, so one newspaper getting caught blew the lid off an entire industry.

@PerkingFaintly there's a link to the lawsuit filing in this Forbes article (click the hyperlink titled "lawsuit" under key facts)

www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/12/24/justin-baldonis-former-publicist-sues-actor-pr-team-over-blake-lively-controversy/

This is a different article which summarises what happened in relation to the texts and how Blake Lively's team got hold of them:

variety.com/2024/film/news/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-bombshell-text-messages-subpoena-1236258665/

Very many thanks, @elessar .

Direct link to lawsuit, for anyone who wants it:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=Xc9lTZnkJAsclCjfCv0G4g==

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
Stephanie Jones, Jonesworks LLC, Plaintiffs,
-against-
Jennifer Abel, Melissa Nathan, Justin Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios LLC, and JOHN
DOES 1-10, Defendants.

Absolutely. The parallels between the movie, real life and production are shockingly apparent.

And now Baldoni is suing the NYT!

Filing is here: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25473221/justin-baldoni.pdf

I'm not sure this is the amazing defence he thinks it is. A lot of the evidence refuting the allegations seems to be comments from him saying things like "we aren't using bots are we?" and being reassured that their social team are much smarter than that, or citing one example where BL has invited JB into her trailer while pumping, and using this to suggest there's no way she can have had a problem any other time with JB entering her trailer uninvited or that she might have felt uncomfortable.

Some of the language and descriptions used by the lawyers is really bizarre too, at one point suggesting that because JB and Jamey Heath both have kids and have wives who have breastfed, it would be ridiculous for BL not to feel comfortable breastfeeding in their presence. It's all extremely emotive language which feels odd to read in a legal document.

The other thing that is really odd is the narrative around BL's cut of the movie, saying despite having no contractual right to do so, she took control of the editing, fired the editors and the films composer, banned Baldoni from attending his own premiere, insisted her cut was the one that was used despite Baldoni's testing much better with audiences etc.. and that Wayfarer felt forced into all this so just allowed it to happen. it just doesn't make sense - they, and Sony, were the ones with the ownership over these decisions, so I simply can't believe this played out the way it's described here.

Either way it makes fascinating reading. Be very interesting to see what happens next.

That NYT piece was thoroughly researched and referenced. Bizarre that JL thinks he can take on the NYT! All they did was look at the lawsuit and quote it. Good luck fighting the first amendment, Justin! Knob.

JB must be the most arrogant man on earth if he thinks this is a good idea.🤦‍♀️

I find it funny that his main argument is that they used texts out of context and cherry picked stuff to make him look bad. But his defence is entirely based on using some different texts out of context as well.

I can't imagine this lawsuit will get him anywhere, it seems to me to be more a last gasp attempt to get his narrative out there and hope that those who don't bother to read the detail will just think it's tit for tat between them, or that he wouldn't have filed a lawsuit if he wasn't innocent of what he's accused of.

Baldoni seems very much from the same box as Jonathan "Sword of Truth" Aitken MP, convict – for those who remember.

But his defence is entirely based on using some different texts out of context as well.

None of which make him look good!

Proving that he's stupid as well as sleazy.🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️

I read his defence and I actually think it’s strong. It shows where BL’s filing removed parts of text messages, the context entirely changes and I don’t think it’ll be as clear cut as some on here seem to think.

I started being swayed with BL’s lawsuit and now I don’t know where I stand. What I do know is BL is still an awful person and this is a PR lawsuit, not one for genuine upset, however that doesn’t mean she wasn’t SA which is awful and JB is awful if this is all true.

And this is what his "strategy " is meant to do. Either that , or the bots are still hard at work.

He seems to be denying that the list of demands exists.

I thought there was a meeting and the demands were agreed to.

The truth about the list of demands would be key, I think.

The first thing to note is how poorly written it is for a legal document. Bizarrely tabloid style - emotional and hyperbolic, and merely makes the same points repeatedly. The unredacted texts don’t alter the context significantly.

The argument that not all the negative press was them is not a strong one when they had a clearly stated policy to plant negative stories, which is BL’s point, and it’s impossible to determine how much of the ensuing negativity was influenced by their machinations, or whether the claim not to use bots is actually true.

It’s interesting that your take home from this is that BL is an “awful person” but you’re less sure about JB. The very obvious inference is that he is a massive cunt regardless of how uppity BL is or misjudged some of her personal choices.

Hmm yes, you were definitely always on BL's side weren't you?

Regardless of whether someone feels jealousy or doesn't like BL, it's clear she faced very inappropriate behaviour during filming. Then, she faced a PR campaign against her afterwards.
He and his bots can continue with the negativity, but it's easy to see through it. I hope she wins the court case.

I recommend reading the tattle thread on this. Neither party is going to come out of this well.

What information does tattle or anyone on that awful website have that isn't already available?

What I took from his lawsuit is that the list of demands did exist and was agreed to, but I think he's claiming that it was full of things which had never happened, and BL had deliberately included 'no more' against the statements to make them seem like they were based on events that had occurred.

Which doesn't stack up to me... because firstly it would be incredibly malicious behaviour on behalf of BL to do such a thing - and for what purpose? And secondly because I can't imagine why anyone would be prepared to sign a document agreeing to no longer do things which had never taken place - not without insisting on a redrafted document or an addendum that explicitly states as much.

But the lawsuit is full of bold claims where the evidence doesn't really support it. They say repeatedly that BL refused to meet with the intimacy coordinator, forcing JB to meet with them alone and relate scenes back to BL - and the evidence provided is a text where JB says he's found an intimacy coordinator and shall he set up a meeting and BL says she's happy to meet them when she starts - or words to that effect. So not refusing to meet with them at all.

And yes the argument about the negative press seems to be "look we didn't start all the negative commentary on BL, some of it was organic" - well that doesn't in any way prove that you didn't start some of it, or stir up and amplify what was already happening.

It's really flimsy as a defence.

But the lawsuit is full of bold claims where the evidence doesn't really support it. They say repeatedly that BL refused to meet with the intimacy coordinator, forcing JB to meet with them alone and relate scenes back to BL - and the evidence provided is a text where JB says he's found an intimacy coordinator and shall he set up a meeting and BL says she's happy to meet them when she starts - or words to that effect. So not refusing to meet with them at all.

I noted that.

It’s not clear exactly what happened - in the texts he’s urging her to meet with the coordinator which she says she will once they start. Later she finds he’s improvising and devising new sex scenes she hasn’t agreed to, and calls for one. We don’t know what happened in the interim.

We do know that she is quoted previously, in an interview for a different film, as saying an intimacy coordinator is “critical”.

So you believe she was sexually harassed and possibly assaulted, whilst at the same time asserting that this lawsuit is not motivated by "genuine upset"?! Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Enough US firms confirmed this is a PR law suit. She may have been sexually harassed, I can’t deny that. I don’t believe that’s the reason behind her doing this though.

Ive also read both claims completely. I also understand American law (she didn’t “file” a law suit, she asked permission to file which is the rule in Cali)