AceShowbiz - Blake Lively’s high-profile lawsuit accusing Justin Baldoni and his production partners of sexual harassment and defamation has been largely dismissed by a federal judge, significantly narrowing the case just six weeks before it was set to go to trial in Manhattan.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman issued a detailed 152-page ruling that dismissed 10 of the 13 claims brought by Lively, leaving only her allegations of retaliation and breach of contract against the producers of the domestic violence film It Ends With Us, as well as a claim of aiding and abetting retaliation against The Agency Group PR. The trial is scheduled to begin on May 18.

Originally filed on December 31, 2024, Lively’s lawsuit accused the film’s director, Justin Baldoni, the production company Wayfarer Studios, and other defendants of subjecting her to disturbing sexual harassment during filming. She also alleged that after she spoke out, the defendants orchestrated an extensive, coordinated online smear campaign aimed at damaging her reputation before she could go public with her allegations.

The complaint characterized the backlash as a well-financed and sophisticated effort to silence and destroy her credibility.

In a notably critical section of the ruling, Judge Liman rejected Lively’s claim that Baldoni’s improvised behavior during a slow-dance scene—where he reportedly whispered “it smells so good” while dragging his lips down her neck—constituted a hostile work environment. The judge emphasized that context is crucial in evaluating sexual harassment claims, especially in creative settings.

“There is no question that this conduct might support a hostile work environment claim if it occurred on the factory floor or in the executive suite,” the judge wrote. “But in all sexual harassment cases, the court must carefully consider the social context in which particular behavior occurs and is experienced by its target.”

Judge Liman determined that since Baldoni was performing a scene and improvising within the boundaries of the script, the conduct was not beyond what could reasonably be expected between two characters in a slow-dance sequence. The behavior was directed at Lively’s character, not at Lively personally. The ruling acknowledged that creative professionals must have some freedom to experiment without fear of being accused of harassment for artistic choices.

Despite dismissing most sexual harassment claims, the judge found evidence supporting Lively’s assertions that she was pressured to film a birth scene nude from the waist down, covered by only a thin black fabric, without the protections of a closed set or an intimacy coordinator, violating her contract terms.

Additionally, testimony revealed that Baldoni told crew members that Lively had never watched pornography, a statement the judge noted appeared unrelated to the creative process and singled her out in a potentially sexualized manner. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Lively, the court found sufficient evidence for her to reasonably believe she was subjected to a hostile work environment.

However, the sexual harassment claims failed on legal grounds. Judge Liman concluded that Lively was an independent contractor rather than an employee under the statutes she cited. The ruling noted there was no genuine dispute that she maintained extensive control over decisions related to the film and her role, which excluded her from certain employment protections.

The judge validated Lively’s retaliation claims, noting that some conduct by Baldoni and his studio partners potentially crossed the line. While the defendants had the right to hire public relations and crisis management firms to defend their reputations, the court warned there are limits to such responses. It stated, “There comes a point where the accused stops simply defending him or herself and starts taking action that a reasonable jury could view as retaliation for the fact that the accuser had the temerity to make the accusations.”

Lively’s attorney, Sigrid McCawley, issued a statement clarifying that the dismissal of most sexual harassment claims was due to Lively’s independent contractor status, not the merit of the allegations themselves.

“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 said. She added that Lively looks forward to testifying and continuing to expose the “vicious form of online retaliation” to help others recognize and combat it.

Conversely, Baldoni’s legal team, led by Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach, celebrated the ruling as a victory. They expressed gratitude for the court’s thorough review and dismissal of all sexual harassment claims against the individual defendants, including Baldoni, producing partners Jamey Heath and Steve Sarowitz, and PR professionals 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,” the defense lawyers said. “What’s left is a significantly narrowed case, and we look forward to presenting our defense to the remaining claims in court.”

The legal dispute first came to public attention in late 2024 after a December 21 New York Times article titled We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine. The piece revealed that Lively had filed an initial complaint with the California Civil Rights Department against Baldoni earlier that year.

The case has drawn attention for its focus on workplace safety, creative boundaries, and the repercussions of speaking out against alleged misconduct in Hollywood productions. With the trial set for mid-May, all eyes remain on the courtroom as the parties prepare to argue the remaining claims.