A Manhattan judge rejected the sexual harassment counts in Blake Lively's complaint but ruled that claims of retaliation and an alleged orchestrated campaign merit a trial by jury
The federal court in Manhattan delivered a mixed outcome in the dispute between Blake Lively and director Justin Baldoni. On Thursday, April 2, Judge Lewis J. Liman issued an opinion that tossed Lively’s core sexual harassment claims but explicitly allowed several counts tied to retaliation, breach of contract, and related theories to survive and move forward to trial. The decision narrows the scope of evidence a jury can weigh: rather than considering every allegation of misconduct, jurors will be asked to decide whether the defendants engaged in a coordinated campaign that harmed Lively’s reputation and career.
Judge Liman’s 152-page ruling wrestles with the legal boundaries of acceptable response versus unlawful retaliation. He noted that certain defensive measures taken by the accused can be lawful while more aggressive tactics may be actionable as retaliation—defined in this context as conduct meant to punish or silence someone for reporting alleged misconduct. The court distinguished between ordinary public relations responses and alleged strategies designed to “destroy” an accuser’s credibility and livelihood, finding that enough evidence exists for a jury to probe whether the line was crossed.
In his written opinion, Judge Liman emphasized that there are “limits to the response that the accused can make in response to claims of harassment.” The judge found that some of the correspondence and planning attributed to Baldoni and his associates could be understood not merely as reputation management but as actions aimed at undermining Lively’s professional standing. The decision does not accept all of Lively’s allegations wholesale; rather it preserves a narrower set of claims—chiefly those alleging coordinated retaliation—that a jury must evaluate based on the evidence presented at trial.
The court rejected several of Lively’s sexual harassment counts after applying jurisdictional and statutory tests. Judge Liman concluded that the sexual harassment allegations did not establish the necessary “substantial connection” to California law to support a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and he found that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act did not apply because Lively was characterized as an independent contractor rather than an employee—an important legal distinction that limits the statute’s reach. Those legal rulings removed multiple counts from the case, narrowing what the jury will be asked to decide.
Conversely, the judge allowed claims about a potential smear campaign to proceed, citing evidence that could persuade a jury that certain parties planned “more aggressive action” against Lively. The complaint, filed earlier and referenced in court papers, alleges that after Lively raised concerns—among them an incident in which she said a Wayfarer executive stared at her in a trailer—the defendants hired crisis communications professionals and coordinated digital strategies that Lively says were intended to damage her career. The court highlighted contested factual questions about whether the social media backlash was organic or orchestrated, leaving those factual disputes for jury resolution.
The litigation is headed for a jury unless the parties reach a settlement. Media reports indicate a trial date of May 18, though the case could resolve earlier. Lively’s counsel, including attorney Sigrid McCawley, has said the suit remains focused on exposing the mechanics of alleged online attacks and holding accountable those who allegedly executed them. Baldoni and his team have denied wrongdoing and previously mounted counterclaims; a defamation counter suit he filed was dismissed last June. The judge’s ruling now frames the trial around whether these communications and PR moves crossed from legitimate defense into unlawful retaliation.
Beyond the personal stakes for the parties involved, the case raises questions about how the entertainment industry manages allegations internally and externally. Judges and juries will be asked to consider the intersection of modern crisis PR tactics, social media dynamics, and workplace protections. If jurors find that defendants used coordinated digital strategies to damage an accuser, the verdict could influence how studios, agencies, and publicists handle misconduct claims and the risk calculus around defensive communications. Regardless of the outcome, the litigation is poised to sharpen discussions about accountability, reputational harm, and the legal limits of public relations responses.