A federal judge in Manhattan on Thursday gutted most of Blake Lively's sexual‑harassment claims against director Justin Baldoni, leaving a slimmer set of retaliation and contract allegations to face a jury. In a 152-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman sharply narrowed Lively's lawsuit tied to the 2024 film It Ends With Us. The remaining counts are set for a May 18, 2026 trial in federal court.
Judge frames disputes as part of the film's creative context
Liman concluded that Lively was working as an independent contractor rather than an employee, a legal distinction that blocks her from pursuing federal harassment claims under Title VII. He also found that some of the conduct Lively described took place "in the scene" and, assuming improvisation, was not so far outside what might be expected between characters to support a hostile‑work‑environment claim, according to CBS News. The opinion underscored the creative leeway directors and actors have when they are working inside an agreed script.
What survives and what's headed to a jury
Even as he tossed many counts, Liman allowed several retaliation claims and a breach‑of‑contract rider to proceed, including allegations of a coordinated effort to damage Lively's reputation, according to The Associated Press. The opinion pointed to details such as an alleged comment that Lively looked "pretty hot" after removing her jacket and an extended birth scene filmed without a closed set as potential evidence of retaliatory conduct. The ruling notes that a trial is scheduled to start on May 18.
Statements from counsel
Lively's attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement to CBS News that the lawsuit "has always been and will remain focused on the devastating retaliation" and that Lively is looking forward to testifying. For Baldoni, attorneys Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach told the same outlet they are "very pleased" the court dismissed the sexual‑harassment allegations and said they are eager to defend against the remaining claims at trial.
Legal takeaway
The ruling highlights how much a plaintiff's employment status can shape their legal options. Federal anti‑discrimination law generally covers employees, not independent contractors, as the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explains. That distinction, combined with Liman's view that some of the challenged conduct unfolded within the creative process on set, proved decisive for the federal harassment counts while leaving retaliation and contract theories in play.
Next steps and courtroom calendar
After the opinion came down, counsel held a brief phone conference to hash out jury selection and logistics for the May 18 start date, and pretrial deadlines remain on the books, according to The Associated Press. The trial will zero in on the surviving retaliation and contract claims and could pull additional internal communications and witness accounts into the public record.
Whatever the outcome, the May trial is poised to test where courts draw the line between on‑set improvisation as part of filmmaking and conduct that crosses into legally actionable workplace misconduct. Expect more witnesses, messages and production‑level detail to surface as the case marches toward jury selection.
