Judge Narrows Blake Lively Lawsuit Against Justin Baldoni Ahead of Trial

A federal judge has significantly reduced the scope of a high-profile lawsuit filed by Blake Lively against Justin Baldoni and associated production partners tied to the film It Ends With Us, eliminating the majority of her claims just weeks before the case is set to go to trial in New York.

In a detailed ruling issued on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman dismissed 10 of the 13 claims originally brought by Lively, including allegations of sexual harassment and defamation. The ruling leaves three claims intact: retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) against production entities IEWUM and Wayfarer, an aiding-and-abetting FEHA retaliation claim against TAG, and a breach of contract claim tied specifically to the film’s Contract Rider Agreement (CRA) against IEWUM.

Central to the court’s decision was the classification of Lively’s working status during production. Judge Liman found that Lively operated as an independent contractor rather than an employee, a distinction that proved decisive in dismissing her sexual harassment claims under the statutes cited in her complaint.

While Lively’s federal employment-based claims were dismissed on that basis, her California claims were analyzed separately under different legal frameworks.

The ruling stated there was no material dispute that Lively exercised significant control over her role and creative decisions on the film, placing her outside the legal protections typically afforded to employees in workplace harassment cases. As a result, the court concluded that her claims could not proceed under the specific legal framework she invoked.

The court dismissed Lively’s harassment claims under California law, but not based on any categorical rule about conduct occurring within a scripted performance. Instead, the court evaluated whether the alleged conduct met the legal threshold for a hostile work environment under the specific circumstances presented. In analyzing individual incidents, including a disputed slow-dance scene, the court found that, considered in isolation and in context, that interaction was not sufficient to support a harassment claim. The judge noted it was not clearly beyond what might reasonably occur in a filmed performance and, viewed on its own, did not support an inference of sex-based hostility.

The court emphasized that harassment claims must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances, and noted that other alleged conduct in the case presented a closer question. Ultimately, the harassment claims were dismissed based on the applicable legal standards and factual context, not because the court adopted any rule that conduct within a performance setting cannot constitute harassment.

The judge pointed to other elements of the case that could support Lively’s remaining claims. These include allegations that she was pressured to participate in a partially nude birth scene without appropriate safeguards, such as a closed set or an intimacy coordinator, conditions that, according to the ruling, may have violated contractual agreements.

The court also referenced testimony that Baldoni made comments about Lively’s personal life that were unrelated to the film’s creative process, suggesting that such remarks could be interpreted as inappropriate and potentially relevant to the broader dispute.

While dismissing the majority of claims, the judge allowed Lively’s retaliation allegations under FEHA to proceed, indicating that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the defendants’ actions crossed a legal line.

The ruling points to allegations that Lively may have faced reputational harm following her complaints, including claims of coordinated public relations efforts that could be interpreted as extending beyond legitimate self-defense.

In addition, the court allowed a breach of contract claim to proceed, but only with respect to the Contract Rider Agreement (CRA) and only against IEWUM. Other contract-related claims were dismissed.

The dispute first drew widespread attention in late 2024, following a report that detailed Lively’s initial complaint and allegations of a coordinated campaign against her.

Attorneys for Baldoni and the other defendants characterized the ruling as a significant legal victory, emphasizing the dismissal of the federal harassment claims. Lively’s legal team responded by emphasizing that the dismissal was based on technical legal grounds rather than a rejection of the underlying allegations. In a statement, her attorney said the case would now focus on what they described as a broader pattern of retaliation following Lively’s complaints about on-set conditions.

The trial remains scheduled to begin on May 18 in Manhattan federal court.