A federal judge dismissed 10 of 13 claims in Blake Lively's lawsuit against Justin Baldoni on April 2, including all sexual harassment, defamation, and conspiracy charges. Judge Lewis J. Liman ruled in a 152-page decision that Lively was an independent contractor -- not an employee -- and therefore couldn't bring harassment claims under Title VII. Three retaliation claims against Baldoni's production company survive; Baldoni himself is no longer a defendant in any of them. Jury selection is set for May 18.
1. The System Worked (Baldoni's Legal Team, Bryan Freedman, Due Process Advocates)
Ten of thirteen claims gone. The harassment allegations -- the ones that destroyed his career overnight -- were thrown out on the merits.
The judge didn't just dismiss on a technicality. Judge Liman wrote that Baldoni's conduct was "not so far beyond what might reasonably be expected to take place between two characters during a slow dancing scene." He went further: creative artists "must have some amount of space to experiment within the bounds of an agreed script without fear of being held liable for sexual harassment." That's not a procedural ruling -- it's a substantive one about what counts as harassment on a film set.
Baldoni's attorney declared vindication. Bryan Freedman said the defendants "were not afraid of the truth" and that the ruling confirms what the legal team believed from day one. He emphasized that neither Baldoni nor co-defendant Jamey Heath engaged in sexual harassment.
Baldoni is personally out of the case. The three surviving claims -- breach of contract and retaliation -- name only Wayfarer Studios and It Ends With Us Movie LLC. Baldoni the person is no longer a defendant. For someone whose directing career was effectively ended by these allegations, that distinction matters enormously.
2. This Isn't Over (Lively's Legal Team, Sigrid McCawley, Retaliation Victims)
The harassment claims were dismissed on employment law grounds. The retaliation case -- the campaign to destroy her reputation -- is still going to trial.
Lively's team says the real case was always retaliation. Attorney Sigrid McCawley said the case has always been focused on "the devastating retaliation and the extraordinary steps the defendants took to destroy Blake Lively's reputation because she stood up for safety on the set." Lively looks forward to testifying at trial.
The judge himself acknowledged the conduct was problematic. Even while dismissing the harassment claims, Judge Liman noted that "certain conduct at least arguably crossed the line." The dismissal was about legal categories -- independent contractor vs. employee, California law vs. New Jersey jurisdiction -- not about whether anything inappropriate happened.
The harassment evidence can still come in at trial. Some evidence from the dismissed sexual harassment allegations may be presented to support the retaliation claims that survived. The jury will still hear about what happened on set -- just under a different legal framework. The narrative hasn't changed; the legal label has.
3. The Contractor Loophole Just Got Bigger (Employment Lawyers, NPR Analysis, Workplace Safety Advocates)
If you're an independent contractor on a film set, federal harassment law doesn't protect you. That's a lot of people.
The ruling exposes a gap in workplace protection. Lively was classified as an independent contractor, which put her outside Title VII's protections. This isn't unusual in Hollywood -- most actors, directors, and crew are technically contractors, not employees. The ruling effectively says that a significant portion of the entertainment industry workforce has no federal recourse for on-set harassment.
The "creative space" language is a precedent problem. Judge Liman's statement that creative artists need space to experiment "without fear of being held liable for sexual harassment" could be read as a broad shield for directors. The line between creative direction and harassment has always been blurry on film sets. This ruling makes it blurrier.
The jurisdictional issue adds another layer. Lively couldn't file under California law because filming happened in New Jersey. Productions routinely shoot across state lines, which means the applicable harassment law can change depending on which location a scene was filmed at. For an industry that operates nationally, this creates a patchwork of protections.
Where This Lands
The headline says Baldoni won. The fine print says the trial is still on, Lively is still testifying, and the retaliation evidence will still go before a jury in May. What the ruling actually did was separate two questions: whether Baldoni sexually harassed Lively (dismissed on legal grounds, not on the facts) and whether his team retaliated against her for speaking up (going to trial). For Baldoni, being removed as a personal defendant is a real win. For Lively, the case she says she always cared about -- the smear campaign -- is intact. For everyone else in Hollywood who works as an independent contractor, the ruling is a reminder that the law hasn't caught up to how the industry actually works.