{"id":509658,"date":"2026-04-02T22:15:12","date_gmt":"2026-04-02T22:15:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/509658\/"},"modified":"2026-04-02T22:15:12","modified_gmt":"2026-04-02T22:15:12","slug":"judge-delivers-brutal-slapdown-of-blake-livelys-fat-shaming-and-sexual-harassment-claims-in-major-pre-trial-win-for-justin-baldoni","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/509658\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge delivers brutal slapdown of Blake Lively’s fat-shaming and sexual harassment claims in major pre-trial win for Justin Baldoni"},"content":{"rendered":"

Justin Baldoni<\/a> has secured a major win over Blake Lively<\/a>\u00a0as a judge has dismissed all of the actress’ sexual harassment claims against him ahead of their trial.<\/p>\n

The It Ends With us co-stars have been locked in legal drama since December 2024 – but Judge Lewis Liman’s decision today means the actress, 39, has only three claims left to argue:\u00a0breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting retaliation.<\/p>\n

The trial is still scheduled to proceed May 18 in New York City<\/a>\u00a0– but now Lively’s case is dramatically thinner.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Baldoni’s attorneys, Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach, told Daily Mail: ‘We\u2019re very pleased the Court dismissed all sexual harassment claims and every claim brought against the individual defendants: Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel.<\/p>\n

‘These were very serious allegations, and we are grateful to the Court for its careful review of the facts, law and voluminous evidence that was provided.<\/p>\n

‘What\u2019s left is a significantly narrowed case, and we look forward to presenting our defense to the remaining claims in court.’<\/p>\n

Among Lively’s allegations was that Baldoni crossed professional boundaries during filming of It Ends With Us, claiming he kissed her during a scene where the script didn\u2019t call for it. She also accused him of entering her trailer while she was breastfeeding and alleged that a producer showed her a video of his wife giving birth.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In his ruling, Judge Lewis Liman said that legal contracts that Lively cited for her claim were \u2018unenforceable\u2019 because she didn\u2019t sign them.<\/p>\n

\"Justin <\/p>\n

Justin Baldoni has secured a major win over Blake Lively as a judge has dismissed all of the actress’ sexual harassment claims against him ahead of their trial; (pictured February)<\/p>\n

\"A <\/p>\n

A somber looking Lively is seen arriving at court on February 11 2026<\/p>\n

\"The <\/p>\n

The It Ends With us co-stars have been locked in legal drama since December 2024 – but Judge Lewis Liman’s decision today means the actress, 39, has only three claims left to argue\u00a0<\/p>\n

Join the discussion<\/p>\n

Did Lively just lose her strongest argument?<\/p>\n

In particular, Lively did not sign the Actor Loanout Agreement, or ALA, which would have governed sexual harassment on set, after squabbling with Baldoni\u2019s team for months about the terms.<\/p>\n

In his 152-page ruling, the judge wrote: \u2018It is clear that the ALA is not and has never been a validly formed and binding contract, as IEWUM (It Ends With Us Movie) unambiguously expressed an intent not to be bound absent a fully executed and signed agreement\u2019.<\/p>\n

The judge disagreed with Lively for claiming she could sue because there was \u2018no evidence the parties disagreed over the rest of the provision\u2019 regarding sexual harassment.<\/p>\n

\u2018That slices matters too finely,\u2019 Judge Liman said.<\/p>\n

\u2018The question whether Lively would have the unilateral right to halt production of the film if in her view sexual harassment occurred is hardly inconsequential. The fact that the parties were not able to come to terms on such provision provides powerful evidence that no contract had yet been formed\u2019.<\/p>\n

Judge Liman also disagreed with Lively\u2019s pleading that she could sue using the ALA because of Baldoni\u2019s discussions about it.<\/p>\n

The ruling stated: \u2018The court disagrees. Considering Lively\u2019s evidence both in isolation and as a whole, it fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning formation of the ALA\u2019.\u00a0<\/p>\n

In a blunt part of the ruling, Judge Liman said: ‘\u2018Ultimately, Lively fails to confront what is the central dilemma in her claim.<\/p>\n

\u2018She contends that the ALA became binding on IEWUM at some point while the parties were still negotiating it, but she cannot pinpoint a time when the parties began to be bound by it or which version of the ALA they were bound to.<\/p>\n

\"In <\/p>\n

In his ruling, Judge Lewis Liman said that legal contracts that Lively cited for her claim were \u2018unenforceable\u2019 because she didn\u2019t sign them<\/p>\n

\u2018Unless both parties are bound, neither party is bound.<\/p>\n

\u2018Which draft of the ALA bound Lively? Was it the version that lacked the sexual harassment provision?\u2019<\/p>\n

In his ruling, Judge Liman knocked down another of Lively\u2019s arguments and said she \u2018gets things backwards\u2019.<\/p>\n

It was in response to the idea that simply because Baldoni had paid her allowed to sue under the ALA.<\/p>\n

However the judge said that Lively\u2019s claims under another legal contract, the Contract Rider Agreement, or CRA, \u2018stand on firmer ground\u2019, specially the part that relates to not allowing retaliation for raising concerns about conduct on set.<\/p>\n

The CRA was signed in January 2024 by Jamey Heath, the producer of the film, and included a list of 17 requirements in order for Lively to return to filming.<\/p>\n

Baldoni has claimed that he felt they had little choice in order for the film to be completed.<\/p>\n

Among the provisions was that there would be no improvised sex scenes of any kind.<\/p>\n

\"The <\/p>\n

The judge disagreed with Lively for claiming she could sue because there was \u2018no evidence the parties disagreed over the rest of the provision\u2019 regarding sexual harassment<\/p>\n

Judge Liman cited in particular the part which said there should be \u2018no retaliation of any kind against Artist for raising concerns about the conduct described in this letter.<\/p>\n

According to the judge, the fact Lively took such control over the film meant that her claims failed too.<\/p>\n

In order for them to proceed under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Labor Code, Lively had to be an employee of It Ends With Us.<\/p>\n

But Judge Liman said that the \u2018undisputed facts reveal that Lively enjoyed a degree of economic independence sufficient to make her an independent contractor\u2019, meaning those laws did not apply to her.<\/p>\n

He reeled off a litany of things that Lively required for her services including a 12 hour cap on days, choosing 90 percent of the songs on the film, \u2018overseeing every shot that makes it into the film\u2019, soliciting feedback from test screenings and choosing which takes would make it into the final film.<\/p>\n

Judge Liman said: \u2018Although not every factor weighs equally in favor of that conclusion when viewed in isolation, analyzing the factors collectively eliminates any genuine dispute. That means that Lively cannot bring a claim\u2019.<\/p>\n

In the ruling, the judge said that Lively not only had substantial contractual control over her participation in the film, but she exercised that control\u2019.<\/p>\n

Judge Liman said: \u2018She played a part in hiring and firing assistants, negotiated for the relocation of filming to be closer to her home, rewrote the script, conducted meetings with all department heads and the studio, oversaw a team of editors, and played a central part in shaping the Film\u2019s \u201clook,\u201d marketing, and release.<\/p>\n

\"In <\/p>\n

In his ruling, Judge Liman (pictured) knocked down another of Lively\u2019s arguments and said she \u2018gets things backwards\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2018She enjoyed the economic independence to walk at any moment with the only consequence being that she would potentially be in breach of contract.<\/p>\n

\u2018And she exercised that independence in negotiating the terms under which she would return to work. She also enjoyed equity in the film’.<\/p>\n

Turning to the retaliation claims, the judge said that a jury might find that she \u2018opposed practices that she subjectively believed constituted sexual harassment\u2019.<\/p>\n

However the judge noted that Baldoni\u2019s team claimed that she used those claims as a \u2018cudgel for control over the film\u2019.<\/p>\n

The judge wrote: \u2018A reasonable jury could find that Lively also genuinely experienced what happened on set as discriminatory. The two are not mutually exclusive.<\/p>\n

\u2018There is at least a triable issue with respect to whether Lively sincerely experienced what happened on set as sexually harassing.<\/p>\n

\u2018Viewed in the light most favorable to Lively, there is also sufficient evidence that it was reasonable for her to believe that the Wayfarer Parties sexually harassed her by creating a hostile work environment\u2019.<\/p>\n

The judge said that several of the incidents that Lively had cited \u2018would not support a hostile work environment claim or would do so, at most, only minimally or in context\u2019.<\/p>\n

But others \u2018come closer\u2019 to stating a claim.<\/p>\n

The judge was dismissive of the idea that Baldoni telling Lively he was circumcised was discriminatory because it occurred within the context of a discussion about the issue.<\/p>\n

\u2018It therefore could not have created a hostile work environment\u2019, the judge said.<\/p>\n

Judge Liman disagreed that the idea of Baldoni adding more sexual acts into the film was discrimatory.<\/p>\n

\u2018It would be \u2018neither surprising nor unreasonable from a creative standpoint\u2019 for both Baldoni and Lively to have drafted sexually explicit material, even if some of it was not to the taste of the other\u2019, the judge wrote.<\/p>\n

In a major blow to Lively, the judge said that her complaints of \u2018fat-shaming\u2019 could \u2018not reasonably support a claim\u2019.<\/p>\n

The allegation related to Baldoni asking Lively\u2019s personal trainer if he knew how much she would weigh when filming began, a question which found its way back to her.<\/p>\n

Another occasion Baldoni introduced Lively to a specialist in probiotics who also specialised in weight loss.<\/p>\n

Judge Liman wrote: \u2018The conduct cannot reasonably be viewed as expressing hostility to Lively as a woman or to women in general.<\/p>\n

\u2018The physical appearance of the protagonists was part of the product that the producers were intending to offer the audience. Lively herself recognized that achieving a \u201ccertain aesthetic\u201d was \u201cpart of the job that we both excitedly signed up for.<\/p>\n

\u2018She asked Baldoni if they could do \u201cthe body scenes at the end of the schedule\u201d so that she would have sufficient time to work out, she wrote to her agent privately that she was \u201cworking out twice a day, 4 hours a day\u201d in order to lose weight and set the movie up for success, as the \u201csexiness in this film and the marketing I\u2019m sure, is critical to its success\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u2018And she told Baldoni, \u201cMy husband and I both look at certain roles as athletic events. And this is one of them\u2026and that\u2019s great\u2019.<\/p>\n

\u2018Given these statements, Baldoni\u2019s actions – even if they could be viewed as gently pushing Lively to lose weight, which is not necessarily supported by the evidence – could not fairly be described as discrimination \u201cbecause of\u201d Lively\u2019s gender.\u2019\u00a0<\/p>\n

The judge also dismissed the idea that Baldoni sexually harassed Lively in a scene where they danced together: she claims he added in additional kisses that were not in the script.<\/p>\n

The Daily Mail was the first to publish the raw footage from the scene in an exclusive story published after the lawsuit was filed\/<\/p>\n

The judge wrote: \u2018He 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 an inference of hostile treatment on the basis of sex would arise.<\/p>\n

\u2018At least in isolation, the conduct was directed to Lively\u2019s 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 script without fear of being held liable for sexual harassment\u2019.<\/p>\n

The latest news in the case comes as the contentious legal battle between Lively and Baldoni has gone on more than a year.<\/p>\n

In December of 2024, Lively\u00a0named Baldoni in a lawsuit accusing him of sexual harassment, retaliatory conduct, and intentional infliction of emotional stress.<\/a><\/p>\n

In her lawsuit, the actress accused Baldoni of sexually harassing her in multiple ways –\u00a0including body shaming her<\/a>\u00a0– and orchestrating a smear campaign against her to damage her reputation.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

In her lawsuit, Lively named a number of Baldoni’s collaborators, including his company Wayfarer Studios, the studio’s CEO and financial backer, and PR personnel.<\/p>\n

Baldoni had initially asked for $250 million in damages from The New York Times<\/a>, mentioning a report it published on the topic that he claimed was defamatory, then added it to the $400 million lawsuit he filed this past January.<\/p>\n

In the suit, Baldoni named Lively, her spouse Ryan Reynolds and her publicist Leslie Sloane, citing the aforementioned report in legal documents.<\/a> It was thrown out of court this past June.\u00a0 All parties have denied all of the allegations against them.<\/p>\n

This past month, attorneys for Lively said Baldoni and his legal team had stepped over the line with ‘probative’ inquisitions over her sex life in depositions linked to the case.\u00a0<\/p>\n

‘Ms. Lively’s sexual and\/or romantic history has no bearing on the matters at issue in this case and we will not tolerate such examination, which will be the subject of a protective order and sanctions motion if it happens again,’ her legal team told the court December 19, Page Six <\/a>reported.<\/p>\n

Lively’s legal team also claimed Baldoni’s attorneys displayed a ‘lack of basic decorum’ during deposition with inappropriate behavior such as ‘insulting comments, audible cross-talk and laughter during examination.’<\/p>\n

\"Baldoni <\/p>\n

Baldoni described the situation involving Lively’s demands as ‘a gigantic clusterf***;’ (pictured December 2024 in NYC)<\/p>\n

It Ends with Us earned $148 million in domestic box office and $350 million globally – but whatever goodwill the film garnered has since been overshadowed by the allegations made by its stars.<\/p>\n

The motion picture,\u00a0which also starred Jenny Slate<\/a>, Hasan Minhaj, Brandon Sklenar and Kevin McKidd, was based on the 2016 novel by Colleen Hoover.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The storyline of the film centered around a toxic relationship between Lily Bloom (played by Lively) and Ryle Kincaid (Baldoni).<\/p>\n

According to a logline for the film, Lily ‘overcomes a traumatic childhood to embark on a new life,’ as ‘a chance meeting with a neurosurgeon sparks a connection but Lily begins to see sides of him that remind her of her parents’ relationship.’\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Justin Baldoni has secured a major win over Blake Lively\u00a0as a judge has dismissed all of the actress’…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":509659,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[17860,97,96,59,17859,478,56,54,55],"class_list":{"0":"post-509658","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-entertainment","8":"tag-blake-lively","9":"tag-dailymail","10":"tag-entertainment","11":"tag-gb","12":"tag-justin-baldoni","13":"tag-tvshowbiz","14":"tag-uk","15":"tag-united-kingdom","16":"tag-unitedkingdom"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/509658","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=509658"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/509658\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/509659"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=509658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=509658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=509658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}