When workplace disputes move from behind the scenes to the front page, the script doesn’t change as much as one might expect. Last week, the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni that reads less like a Hollywood drama and more like an employment law primer where documentation, communication, and employer behaviors determine litigation outcomes. This week, we summarize the plot of Lively v. Baldoni and offer a practical playbook to help employers avoid the legal spotlight.
Link to The Plot The Plot
The legal battle between Hollywood A-lister Blake Lively and actor/writer/producer Justin Baldoni emerged from the production of the 2024 film It Ends With Us and the subsequent public fallout between Lively and Baldoni, the stars of the film. After filming wrapped, Lively and Baldoni engaged in reciprocal mudslinging in the press, in private communications, and in legal filings.
In December 2024, Lively filed her lawsuit against Baldoni and his production company, among other individuals and business entities. Lively alleged that the defendants ignored her complaints of sexual harassment on set, breached various contractual agreements, and later conspired to ruin Lively’s public reputation. She asserted 13 causes of action, including federal employment discrimination claims, California labor and employment claims, breach-of-contract claims, and tort claims under both California and New York law. In late 2025, after what the court described as a “fiercely contested discovery process,” Baldoni’s lawyers filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in the defendants’ favor on all of Lively’s claims.
As any employer who has been pulled into the legal spotlight knows, summary judgment is a crucial phase of litigation — it determines which claims proceed to trial and which ones are dismissed. This is not an early-stage plausibility determination; in deciding summary judgment, the court renders a merits-driven ruling based on what a jury might conclude after assessing the parties’ documentary evidence, deposition testimony, competing factual narratives, and legal arguments.
The Lively v. Baldoni court issued its opinion on April 2, 2026 — and only three of Lively’s claims survived: retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), aiding and abetting retaliation in violation of FEHA, and breach of a contract called a “rider.” Read the full opinion for a more complete analysis of the claims, but here is the short story of how the court handled Lively’s causes of action:
- Federal employment discrimination claims: OUT
The court evaluated the parties’ evidence and conduct to determine that Lively was an independent contractor — not an employee — and therefore she could not bring claims under Title VII, a federal anti-discrimination statute written to protect employees.
- California labor and employment claims: SURVIVED IN PART
Only Lively’s California FEHA retaliation claims survived. Because FEHA is written to prohibit retaliation against any person, not just employees, Lively’s status as an independent contractor did not bar these claims. The court reviewed text messages, emails, and deposition testimony to determine that there was sufficient evidence that a jury could determine Lively complained about behavior she considered sexually harassing, including conduct that happened outside of the film set, and that in response to her complaints, the defendants engaged in a coordinated retaliation campaign to harm her public reputation.
- Breach of contract claims: SURVIVED IN PART
Lively asserted two breach of contract claims, but only one survived. The key factor? One contract was signed… one was not. The court was unpersuaded by Lively’s argument that everyone involved performed certain obligations as if the unsigned contract was in place. But because Lively’s team continued to negotiate contract terms during filming, and Lively never signed the agreement, the court found that the contract was never validly formed and could not be enforced.
- California and New York tort claims: OUT
The court dismissed Lively’s tort claims for defamation, false light, and conspiracy for various reasons, including that the false light claim wasn’t cognizable under New York law and the defamation claim lacked sufficient evidentiary support to proceed to trial.
Link to The Playbook for Employers The Playbook for Employers
Although Lively v. Baldoni arises from a unique factual setting, the court’s analysis is grounded in core employment law principles that apply to Hollywood executives and everyday employers alike:
Link to 1. Your Policies Matter 1. Your Policies Matter
Tighten up your policies to clearly forbid harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. Educate your employees on what constitutes misconduct, going beyond electronic checking-the-box acknowledgements. Instead, consider periodic in-person or virtual trainings that identify harassment and proper reporting procedures, particularly for your managers and HR professionals. Ensure your policies include more recent protections such as the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and the PUMP Act, and reflect current legal standards for classifying employees vs. independent contractors (more on this in our second point) and exempt vs. non-exempt employees.
Your policies should also include clear reporting procedures that provide multiple accessible and confidential avenues for employees to report misconduct, so they are not limited to reporting to their alleged harasser. Encourage immediate reporting and reinforce that employees will not suffer retaliation in response.
Link to 2. Take Care in Classifying Your Workforce 2. Take Care in Classifying Your Workforce
The way you classify workers on paper, and your actual day-to-day interactions with them, inform both your obligations as an employer and the potential scope of your legal liability. The defendants in Lively v. Baldoni escaped many of Lively’s high-value, incendiary claims because the court determined she was an independent contractor rather than an employee.
The Department of Labor recently announced a proposed rule for worker classification that considers two factors: (1) the degree of control an employer exerts over the worker, and (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on their initiative or investment. Individual states also have their own rules governing employee classifications.
Make sure your employment agreements clearly define working relationships and expectations and, most importantly, that those agreements reflect the reality of a worker’s daily functions. Consult your HR and legal teams to ensure that you are properly, and strategically, classifying each member of your workforce. And revisit those classifications regularly. Roles evolve, and a worker who starts out as an independent contractor can quietly become an employee over time.
Link to 3. Reconsider Your Definition of the “Workplace” 3. Reconsider Your Definition of the “Workplace”
Although most of us operate far outside the bright lights of Hollywood, Lively v. Baldoni is an example that sometimes the workplace extends beyond the office, factory, or other traditional setting. Misconduct during social interactions, off-site conferences, or work-related events can still create liability.
If you learn of harassment or discrimination outside the workplace, consider responding in the same way you would if the alleged misconduct occurred on-site.
Link to 4. Take Effective, Consistent Corrective Action 4. Take Effective, Consistent Corrective Action
When you receive a report of workplace misconduct, your response is even more important than your policies. When investigating a complaint, follow and enforce your policies, maintain consistency in your treatment of employees, and ensure your investigation team is neutral. A disorganized or biased investigation process can create liability even where an underlying claim is weak.
Particularly where managers, owners, or other high-ranking employees are accused of misconduct, they should not investigate themselves. Consider the need for impartial, third-party investigators to assess complaints and recommend an effective outcome. And remember, the actions you take after an investigation should be calculated to stop any ongoing harassment and prevent similar conduct in the future.
For a more fulsome discussion of defensible harassment investigations, watch this Breakfast with Bradley presentation.
Link to 5. Documentation Should Be Thorough, but Thoughtful 5. Documentation Should Be Thorough, but Thoughtful
Employers should maintain meticulous, thoughtful documentation of employee complaints and actions taken in response: interviews, investigative reports, email confirmation of verbal discussions — but also consider that not every thought or conversation needs to be recorded. If it’s written down, assume it will be read aloud in a deposition, by a judge in a court filing, and possibly by a jury.
Lively v. Baldoni highlights just how impactful text messages and emails are in proving or defending against workplace misconduct claims. Even loose or overly casual communications in Teams or Slack can become key evidence. Encourage employees to maintain a professional tone across all communication platforms.
Link to 6. Reputation Management vs. Retaliation 6. Reputation Management vs. Retaliation
Employers should exercise caution in managing public disputes. This case proves that coordinated actions taken to mitigate reputational fallout can be interpreted as illegal retaliation. If company-wide or public statements become a necessary response to harassment or discrimination allegations, coordinate carefully between HR, legal, and communications teams to vet statements and avoid claims of retaliation or defamation.
Link to The Final Act The Final Act
In the end, Lively v. Baldoni is less about celebrity drama and more about workplace fundamentals. The decision serves as a practical reminder that purposeful policies, consistent processes, thoughtful communication, and thorough documentation remain the most effective tools for managing the litigation spotlight.