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 decision leaves a narrower case centered on claims of retaliation and breach of contract against the film’s producers, along with a related aiding-and-abetting retaliation claim involving a public relations firm.
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.
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.
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.
Among the allegations examined in the ruling were claims related to Baldoni’s conduct during filming, including an improvised moment in a slow-dance scene. Lively argued that the interaction contributed to a hostile work environment. However, the court determined that the behavior, while potentially problematic in other settings, fell within the bounds of performance in a scripted scene.
Judge Liman noted that evaluating such claims requires careful consideration of context, particularly in creative environments where actors may engage in physical or improvised interactions consistent with their roles. The court concluded that the conduct in question was directed at the fictional characters rather than Lively personally, and therefore did not meet the legal threshold for harassment under the circumstances presented.
At the same time, 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 to proceed, indicating that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether the defendants’ actions crossed a legal line.
The lawsuit alleges that after raising concerns, Lively became the target of a coordinated effort to damage her reputation, including the use of public relations strategies designed to undermine her credibility. The court acknowledged that while individuals accused of misconduct are entitled to defend themselves, there are limits to such responses.
In the ruling, Judge Liman wrote that a reasonable jury could find that certain actions went beyond defense and entered the realm of retaliation, particularly if they were intended to punish or silence the accuser.
The dispute first drew widespread attention in late 2024, following reporting that detailed Lively’s initial complaint and allegations of a coordinated campaign against her. The case has since expanded to include communications involving high-profile figures connected to Lively, underscoring the broader cultural and reputational stakes.
Attorneys representing Baldoni and the other defendants characterized the ruling as a significant legal victory, noting that all sexual harassment claims and individual liability allegations were dismissed.
The trial remains scheduled to begin on May 18 in Manhattan federal court.
