A (10:08)
You're probably driving, working out or doing chores right now, TikTok isn't just entertainment. It's where I find fast, practical advice for real life. Download TikTok now. All right, now back to the story. And this is what I've been looking forward to all day. I am so excited. Let's go through all of the reasons why Judge Lehman says that Blake Lively's claims will not hold up in court. All right, so in regards to the uncomfortable circumcision conversation that allegedly happened between Blake and Justin that she claimed was so uncomfortable and perverse, Judge Lehman said that when Lively first met with Baldoni in December of 2022 to discuss possibly participating in the film, Baldoni told Lively, who was pregnant with her first boy at the time, that he was circumcised. Lively found the disclosure uncomfortable and unnecessary, but it occurred in the context of a discussion about the, quote, different medical decisions people make these days, including circumcision for male babies, a topic that Lively herself might have introduced. More importantly, it occurred before she started working on the film. It therefore could not have created a hostile work environment. Any incidents giving rise to the hostile work environment claim must have occurred during the plaintiff's employment. Now, again, it is totally fine and fair to call this a technicality if you want, but that technicality is important because it was before they even started working together. They had this conversation before she signed on. She could have had that conversation. If it was so weird, so hostile, so perverse, she should have walked away. But instead, she signed on with him, and now she's backtracking and saying, oh, I was so uncomfortable then why did you agree to do a film with him? Sorry, I'm getting enraged already. And we have so much more to cover. Now. The other thing that I wanna say that I think is important is that the cultural and social tone of the world should also be taken into account. Like with all of the Maha crunchy moms out there, the fact that circumcision is literally on a decline in our country, prob. Probably because of how much people talk about it, it's not a taboo subject anymore. I think that that should be considered, like, it's not weird to talk about that. And again, if you feel like it's weird, then don't work with him. Don't have the conversation, sign on to do a movie with him, and then years later go, that was actually really uncomfortable. I'm gonna sue you for it. Literally. Guys, we have so much more to cover. But I just got on a rant. Anyway, moving on now to her claims about him writing Gratuitous sex scenes for her. Judge Lehman said this. He said other conduct, particularly viewed in isolation, would also not give rise to a claim for hostile work environment. Prior to principal filming, Baldoni proposed certain edits to the screenplay, including to sex, that Lively believed were gratuitous. That Baldoni suggested scenes involving sexual acts in the context of developing a motion picture involving such adult themes did not create a sexually objectionable environment or an environment hostile to women or men because of sex. It would be, quote, neither surprising nor unreasonable from a creative standpoint for both Baldoni and Lively to have drafted sexually explicit material, even if some of it were not to the taste of the other. Indeed, Giannetti, I think that is, one of the producers had written to Baldoni saying that Soni was going to, quote, try to get as much tasteful hotel sex as you can, guys. An important thing to remember here is that this is a Colleen Hoover book that they were adapting. It is smut. Literally. It is. It is smut. There is steamy, hot sex in all of her books. That is what they're adapting. And Blake Lively wanted to be involved in that. And so now, again, she's backtracking. She's clutching her pearls over drafts that she read that included sex in the adaptation of a Colleen. Like, I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. And I'm so glad that Judge Lehman did not either. And also, again, like you said, differing taste about sex scenes does not equal sexual harassment. Especially when you are not some lowly employee. You're not in a position of lesser power, but you are somebody with equal power who is also rewriting the script. You literally got producer credits. You cannot claim that this man was harassing you. Okay, Anyway, moving on now, moving on to the infamous fat shaming claim. This one is when Blake said that Justin had asked their joint shared trainer how much she weighs to prepare for a scene where he was going to have to lift her because he has a hurt back. The gall. Apparently, that is also harassment. Talking to your shared trainer about how much you weigh so that he doesn't hurt himself doing his job. Ridiculous. Anyway, the judge sided, once again, with common sense and the facts. And he said Lively's complaints of fat shaming could also not reasonably support a claim. Shortly before work on the film began, Lively gave birth to a child. She expressed to Baldoni that she wanted to be in her best shape for filming on or around April 23, 2023, before principal photography began, Baldoni asked a personal trainer that he consulted with, who was also Working separately with Lively. If the trainer knew what Lively would weigh before filming began, Baldoni. Baldoni's question then found its way back to Lively, who felt disturbed. Disturbed, quote, and unsettled that Baldoni was soliciting information about her weight. On another occasion, Baldoni introduced Lively to a specialist in probiotics, who, Lively subsequently discovered, also specialized in weight loss. The harassment. The harassment. Oh, my God. I know all of this. We've been talking about it for a year and a half and it still makes me laugh because of how ridiculous it is. Anyway, Judge Lehman went on to say, given these statements, Baldoni's actions, even if they could be viewed as gently pushing Lively to. To lose weight, which is not necessarily supported by evidence, could not fairly be described as discrimination because of Lively's gender. He's just trying to do his job. The common denominator here is that he's being a relatively normal guy, doing his job as a writer, as a director, doing his job, making sure that he does not injure himself in the workplace, like it's all very normal. Now, guys, we still are not finished. There is more that Lehman debunked in reference to the dance scene that we've talked about before in which she claims that Baldoni was. Was kissing her off script, took everything too far, was like canoodling up on her neck, whatever it is. The judge concluded that there is no question that this conduct might support a hostile work environment claim if it occurred on the factory floor or in the executive suite. But in all sexual harassment cases, the court must carefully consider the social context in which particular behavior occurs and is experienced by its target. And the question is whether, in this context, Baldoni's conduct could reasonably be understood to reflect a view about Lively as a woman rather than the role she was asked to play. Under this framing, it would be difficult to view Baldoni's conduct as reflecting hostility or bias based on gender. He was acting in the scene, assuming he was improvising. The conduct was not so far beyond what might reasonably be expected to take place between two characters during a slow dancing scene, such that the inference of hostile treatment on the basis of sex would arise, at least in isolation. The conduct was directed to Lively's character rather than to Lively herself. Creative artists, no less than comedy room writers, must have some amount of space to experiment within the bounds of an agreed upon script without fear of being held liable for sexual harassment. Boom. Mic drop. Judge Lehman, you just saved Hollywood. If this was a precedent that Blake was setting, that within the confines of a script or Like Judge Lehman said, a comedy writer's room, that if you can get offended by what somebody is doing within their character, like, Hollywood would just implode. You couldn't safely, like, legally, safely do anything because you would be walking on eggshells every single day. You literally could not do your job as an artist. Like, already we know what MeToo did to the world and did to the industry. Imagine that, like, a hundredfold. That is what Blake Lively is hoping that the judge would do. And side note, maybe I am just projecting here as a former theater kid and actress, but I can just envision the judge's tone as he is writing this. You are an actress, dummy. Like how he wrote that line. He was acting in the scene. It was such a short sentence right there. He was acting in a scene, dummy. You signed on to do a romantic movie, a Colleen Hoover adaptation with steamy sex scenes, and now you're going after the guy for doing his job, for acting romantically towards the character that you agreed to play. Anyway, sorry, he made a great point at the top there. Like, this is not some executive coming on to a young woman in a corporate setting. This is not even a director coming onto a girl in her trailer or offset. This was not a casting couch situation. None of that. You voluntarily agreed to play romantically linked characters with this man. And, oh, wow, he tried to be romantic. He tried to sell the fact that you all loved each other, even though behind the scenes, you were at each other's throats the entire time and you were trying to accuse him of sexual harassment. Like, he pushed through all of that and was still trying to do his job. And also, Blake, let's not forget that there actually was a video released from the set where you also went off script and kissed him. Did you forget that? Let's watch. All right. Bye, Emily. See you later. Oh, hi. I'm so sorry. Wait, what are you. No, I just. Is everything okay? Yeah, you just. You forgot this. Wait, what? Guys, that kiss was not in the script. That was something that, in the moment, Blake thought might work for their characters, might add to the intensity or the feeling in the scene seen. Oh, never mind. Hostile work environment. Woo, woo, woo. Somebody sue her again. Do you see how ridiculous it is? I am genuinely over this. Anyway, so, no, to all of the smooth brained feminist to pop base. It was not just a technicality, Blake Lively. It was not a system that was designed to oppress you and other women. And honestly, like, throughout this entire process, Blake has not done herself any favors. So none of US should be surprised about this ruling whatsoever. In fact, in her now infamous letter to the PGA where she was demanding producer credit on the film. Cause you know, she was not hired to be a writer or producer or costume designer or any of those things. Even though she put herself in those roles. She was just hired to be an actress. And so after the fact, she wrote to the pga, she said, I did all of these things. I touched every single aspect of the film. I demand a producer credit. She cited in the letter everything she had done for the film. That letter that she was so proud of was part of her undoing. The judge literally cited the letter, included quotes from it and said it completely undercut all of her victim claims because in her lawsuit she was claiming and alleging sexual harassment under an employer, employee, employee relationship under which she had no control. She wasn't able to do anything about it. And the judge used this letter, of this public letter to show in her own words that that was simply not the case. He writes, there is also no genuine dispute that Lively had extensive involvement in and control over many of the decisions related to the film and her role. She does not dispute the underlying facts relayed in her letter to the Producers Guild of America. As reflected in that letter, Lively led the location shift from Boston to New Jersey. She personally called and or wrote emails to crew and put forth names for department head roles. She reviewed and reshaped the creative of the costume design for all characters. She went through hundred of casting tapes along with her friend Taylor Swift to find the rest of the cast. She zoomed with every cast member to get their notes and ideas. She was responsible for the firing of the first ad. She helped to stage the blocking of every scene for shooting efficiency. She reviewed and instated COVID protocols. She managed the politics and HR concerns. She was the director's partner in all creative and logistical concerns. The director's partner. And yet she is saying she had no power. She was just, she couldn't do anything about it. She had no autonomy or authority on the. Give me a break. Give me a break. The judge goes on and says not only did she reserve substantial contractual control over her participation in the film, but she exercised that control. The court need not rely on her statement in the PGA letter that she, quote, produced every moment of this film to see that her role far exceeded that of a traditional employee. She played a part in the hiring and firing of assistants. She negotiated for the relocation of the film to be closer to home. She rewrote the script. She conducted meetings with all department heads she oversaw a team of editors. She played a central part in shaping the film's look and marketing and release. She enjoyed the economic independence to walk at any moment, with the only consequence being that she would potentially be in breach of contract. And she exercised that independence in negotiating the terms under which she would return to work. She also enjoyed equity in the film, ensuring that her compensation would not be based on just her own work, but also in the film's success as a whole. Sorry, I know that that was a lot of me reading, which I think maybe sometimes can get boring. But I think it's important because what Judge Lehman is saying there is that even if your sexual harassment claims had legs, which they don't, you don't have a case because you were not an employee, as you so brilliantly laid out in your letter to the PGA bragging about how you were in charge of every single thing in the production. A Redditor was posting about this and said there is an obvious irony in writing a detailed self promotional document arguing that you controlled everything about a film's production and then that document becoming exhibit A in an order explaining why you don't qualify for employment protections. You can be the most powerful person in the room or you can be the employee that was wronged by your boss. But arguing both at the same time in the same case, using the same letter, is a genuinely difficult position to be in. The letter got her the producer credit. It also got her the contractor status. Both things can be true. And also what I would add is that that letter also disqualified all of her claims. So again, mic drop from Judge Lehman. Now, I think all of this goes to show yet again that this case, these claims, these allegations were more about power and maybe revenge than anything else. Like, I don't know if she felt slighted when that happened, what happened, if she just wanted the movie like we've talked about before. But somewhere along the line, Blake and by proxy Ryan and Taylor Swift and all of her other dragons began to conspire. We know this now thanks to text. They were conspiring on how they could take down Justin and take over the film and possibly more importantly, take over the rest of the franchise that he has an option for that his company has legally purchased in the public eye. Through her New York Times article and through the court system, she was painting herself as the victim, while simultaneously she was telling all of her industry peers through emails and at premieres, all of those things that she actually was in the driver's seat of this film, that it was her Edit that made it out to movie theaters that she had had to take over because it was such a mess that she was in control the entire time. Like, I'm sorry, but you can't really have it both ways. Blake. Now onto Justin Baldoni and his part in all of this. Obviously, as I'm sure you guys understand now, this is such a huge win for him, especially because thanks to this dismissal, he as an individual is no longer a defendant in the case. The remaining claims against him are against his production company, which obviously he is involved in. But the claims against him as an individual, these awful things he did have been. But I think that possibly, maybe later down the line, this might open up the door for him to reopen his case against her. Which brings me to this comment. This girl said, like I said before, it has nothing to do with the fact that Blake Lively couldn't prove her claims of sexual harassment. Then she talks about the technicalities that we've already debunked multiple times. And she goes on and she says the trial is still set to go in May. Unlike Justin Baldoni's countersuit, which was tossed due to having no evidence to support his claims, Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims were dismissed because of a technicality like. Keke. Keke, how can you be so wrong about so many things? I don't need to repeat myself considering that we have already debunked everything you're saying here. But I do think we should address that last sentence because if you guys remember, shortly after Blake filed her lawsuit, Justin filed a countersuit. It was a 400 million defamation countersuit against Blake Lively and the New York Times. But back in June, I think, of last year, that case was thrown out. It was dismissed. And his haters, like this woman online, said that it was because there was no evidence. He couldn't accuse her of defamation because everything she said was true. He had no evidence. So therefore, Queen Blake Lively believe all women. But actually, and we talked about this last year, his case was thrown out because he was alleging defamation for things that she said that were, quote, legally privileged. They were part of a case against him that was running congruently and she was shielded from liability because it was part of that lawsuit. You can't sue somebody for defamation if those things are said in a privileged lawsuit, if they are part of another case. And that is probably a super dumb way to explain it. I'm sure that somebody in the comments will have a more thought out and concise way to put it. But hopefully you guys get the point it was that. Plus there is also a California law that prohibits survivors from being sued by the people that they are accusing. So that was also in play. But in my opinion, maybe sort of like what Blake Lively was doing. He and his lawyers knew all of this, and this was simply another PR play. He just wanted to be on the record fighting back in a massive way, a $400 million way. And clearly, in my opinion, this helped him win the PR war. He said, I am willing to go to battle to say that the. This is defamatory, that I did not do any of this, that, you know, I didn't do any of this, and you are just trying to, you know, pull one over on me. And so at the end of the day, he didn't care if that case got dismissed. I think further evidence of that is that the judge said that he could refile that case if he adjusted some of the claims and redid it. I think that deadline was in October, and they just let it slide. So that case was fully dismissed. So again, I don't think he really cared about the defamation. He just wanted to be on record again, fighting back. So now, all of that being said, you are officially up to date, and we will will see what happens next. The trial is still set for May. I would love to be in the room where it happens. Blake, Justin, anybody from your teams, if you want to invite me to be there, I will happily do so. I will do it for the people, for America. Do not worry. Send me an invitation. I will hop on a flight to see how this plays out. And what we have to look forward to is Blake still suing Justin for retaliating against her, which, I mean, we know through all of the emails and the texts that he did hire a PR firm to help save his own reputation when she was throwing him under the bus, throwing him literally into the basement. That is a fact. We all know this. I don't think people are very angry about it. So we will see if the judge calls that a crime, that is what is up next.
