A federal judge threw out Blake Lively’s sexual harassment, defamation, and conspiracy claims against her former co-star Justin Baldoni on Thursday, gutting the core of a lawsuit that dominated Hollywood headlines for months and stripping away 10 of the actress’s 13 original claims weeks before trial.
U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman’s ruling leaves Lively with a significantly narrowed case heading into a May 18 trial date. Only two retaliation claims and a breach of contract claim survived the decision, a far cry from the sweeping legal assault Lively launched in December 2024.
The dismissal hinged on a straightforward legal classification. Lively’s team acknowledged the court found she was an independent contractor, not an employee, a distinction that barred her from bringing a federal sexual harassment claim under Title VII. That’s a basic threshold question, and the judge answered it against her.
Judge Liman’s decision ran 152 pages, dismissing claims of sexual harassment, defamation, and conspiracy while allowing three claims, breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting retaliation, to proceed. Every claim against the individual defendants, including Baldoni, film producer Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel, was dismissed.
That is not a minor procedural trim. It is a wholesale rejection of the most serious allegations Lively made public.
Lively originally filed a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department before bringing the matter to federal court, detailing allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and more against Baldoni and Heath. The claims drew enormous media attention and shaped public perception of both actors long before a judge weighed the evidence.
Lively’s attorney, Sigrid McCawley, shared a statement with Fox News Digital framing the ruling as a narrow setback rather than a defeat:
“This case has always been and will remain 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, and that is the case that is going to trial.”
McCawley also offered a pointed explanation for the sexual harassment dismissal, insisting the claim failed on a technicality rather than on the merits:
“Sexual harassment isn’t going forward not because the defendants did nothing wrong but because the court determined Blake Lively was an independent contractor, not an employee.”
That framing deserves scrutiny. The independent-contractor distinction is not a technicality, it is a fundamental element of employment law. Title VII protections apply to employees. If Lively’s legal team filed a Title VII claim without clearing that basic threshold, the question is why they brought it in the first place.
McCawley added that Lively “looks forward to testifying at trial and continuing to shine a light on this vicious form of online retaliation so that it becomes easier to detect and fight.”
The defense struck a markedly different tone. Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach of Shapiro Arato Bach, representing Wayfarer Studios and the individual defendants, told Fox News Digital they were gratified by the court’s careful review:
“We’re 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. 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.”
They characterized what remains as a shell of the original complaint.
“What’s left is a significantly narrowed case, and we look forward to presenting our defense to the remaining claims in court.”
The contrast between the two statements tells the real story. Lively’s side is pivoting to retaliation. Baldoni’s side is pointing out that every harassment allegation, the claims that generated the loudest headlines, failed to survive judicial review.
The Lively-Baldoni dispute has spawned a tangle of legal actions that extends well beyond a single courtroom. On the same day Lively filed her federal suit in December 2024, Baldoni filed a $250 million lawsuit against The New York Times over a December 2024 article about an alleged smear campaign he supposedly ran against his co-star.
Weeks later, Baldoni escalated further. He named Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, in a separate $400 million defamation lawsuit, accusing the couple of attempting to hijack the Colleen Hoover-adapted film “It Ends With Us” and create their own narrative around it.
The combined dollar figures, $650 million in countersuits from Baldoni alone, reflect how far this fight has traveled from a dispute on a film set. Whatever happened during production, the legal battle now involves media organizations, public-relations professionals, and two of Hollywood’s most prominent couples. A phone conference on Thursday between the legal teams already turned to jury selection for the May 18 trial.
This case arrived in the public square wrapped in the language of the #MeToo era. Lively’s original complaint invoked sexual harassment front and center. Media coverage amplified those allegations for months. Public opinion hardened before a single motion was argued.
Now a federal judge has examined the claims and dismissed the harassment charges outright, not on a close call, but on the threshold question of whether Lively even qualified to bring them under federal law. The defamation and conspiracy counts fell too. What remains are contract and retaliation claims that, while serious, carry none of the cultural weight that defined the public narrative.
None of this means Lively’s remaining claims lack merit. Retaliation is a real legal wrong, and the trial will test those allegations on the evidence. But the gap between the case as it was presented to the public and the case as it now stands before the court is wide enough to drive a verdict through.
The pattern is familiar. Serious-sounding accusations generate maximum media coverage. The accused is tried in the press. Then, when the legal system applies its own standards, evidence, standing, statutory requirements, the claims shrink or collapse. The reputational damage, of course, has already been done.
Baldoni spent months under the weight of sexual harassment allegations that a federal judge has now dismissed. Whether the remaining retaliation and contract claims hold up at trial is an open question. But the harassment charges that defined public perception of this dispute did not survive contact with the courtroom.
Several unanswered questions hang over the May 18 proceedings. What specific conduct underlies the two surviving retaliation claims? What are the terms of the contract Lively alleges was breached? And how will a jury weigh the remaining allegations after the most prominent charges have already been thrown out?
The Baldoni-New York Times lawsuit and the $400 million defamation action against Lively and Reynolds add further complexity. These cases may proceed on their own timelines, but they form the backdrop against which jurors will hear the narrowed Lively claims.
Accusations are easy to make and impossible to un-hear. But courtrooms still require proof, and on the charges that mattered most to the public narrative, the proof wasn’t there.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.