By Liz Hartsel

On February 18, 2025, Blake Lively filed an Amended Complaint against Justin Baldoni, her co-star, director, and Executive Producer of the film “It Ends With Us” (the “Film”), Wayfarer Studios LLC, Mr. Baldoni’s production company, It Ends With Us Movie, LLC, Wayfarer’s production entity, Jamey Heath, Wayfarer’s Chief Executive Officer and Producer of the Film, and six others. The lawsuit alleges a toxic work environment, sexual harassment, and retaliation—claims that fall under federal employment law and could have major legal consequences.

There have been many articles published about Ms. Lively’s allegations that Mr. Baldoni engaged in a smear campaign against her (which, coincidentally, sparked a separate defamation lawsuit by Mr. Baldoni against The New York Times), but as an employment law attorney, I’ll be breaking down the federal claims Lively has made under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, what she’ll need to prove, and what her employers’ potential defenses might be. Whether you’re an employer, an employee, or just following the drama, this case is one to watch. [2]

Key Players and Allegations

Ms. Lively asserted two claims against Wayfarer and It Ends With Us Movie, LLC (the “Employers”) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. As a woman/female, Ms. Lively is a member of a “protected class,” meaning she is legally protected under Title VII. Ms. Lively’s employers may be liable for Mr. Baldoni’s and Mr. Heath’s actions because they were her supervisors in the film.

Ms. Lively’s first Title VII claim is for sexual harassment. To prevail on this claim, Ms. Lively will need to prove that the alleged harassment was so “severe or pervasive” that it resulted in a hostile or abusive work environment. To do so, she must demonstrate that the conduct occurred because of her sex or gender.

Ms. Lively’s second Title VII claim is for retaliation. To prove this claim, Ms. Lively will need to show that (1) she engaged in activity protected under Title VII; (2) her Employers were aware of that activity; (3) Ms. Lively suffered adverse employment decisions; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action taken by her Employers.

Ms. Lively alleges that she engaged in “protected activity by complaining to Wayfarer, Mr. Baldoni, and Mr. Heath about harassing treatment based on sex and other unlawful conduct on multiple occasions during the filming and production of the Film” and that she suffered an adverse employment action when the defendants “launch[ed] a coordinated campaign to cast Ms. Lively in a false light during the publicity and promotion of the Film and thereafter.” This alleged smear campaign led to online harassment against Ms. Lively and the other female cast members of the Film.

In her Amended Complaint, Ms. Lively details the harassment she allegedly suffered at the hands of Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath. These allegations include:

1.       More than one instance of Mr. Baldoni attempting to kiss Ms. Lively or suck on her lower lip on-screen, when those actions were not part of the script or agreed to by Ms. Lively in advance;

2.       Asking Ms. Lively invasive questions about her sex life;

3.       Pressuring Ms. Lively to simulate full nudity during a birthing scene without the benefit of a choreographer or intimacy coordinator on a non-closed set and refusing to provide her with anything to cover herself with between takes;

4.       Mr. Baldoni showing a nude video of his wife giving birth to Ms. Lively;

5.       Mr. Baldoni suggesting to Ms. Lively that he had engaged in sexual conduct without consent;

6.       Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath describing their past sexual encounters to Ms. Lively;

7.    Mr. Baldoni making objectifying and derogatory comments about the women on set, including commenting on Ms. Lively’s weight; and

8.   Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath invading Ms. Lively’s personal space while she was undressed and/or breastfeeding.

Proving Employer Liability and Failure to Act

Any one of the allegations above is considered harassment. However, as noted above, harassment must be so “severe or pervasive” that it results in a hostile or abusive work environment for it to be actionable under Title VII.

To impute liability for her sexual harassment claim to her Employers, Ms. Lively must also demonstrate that they failed to provide a reasonable avenue for complaint or knew about the harassment but did not take effective remedial action. In her Amended Complaint, Ms. Lively spends almost thirty paragraphs describing how her Employer “fail[ed] to create a workplace in which individuals felt comfortable raising concerns regarding harassing and other inappropriate behavior on set[.].”

Ms. Lively outlines the grievance she–and other female employees–made about Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath’s conduct and how Wayfarer (which Mr. Baldoni co-chairs and co-founded) declined to investigate because Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath would have to investigate their own alleged misconduct.

What Is the Faragher/Ellerth Defense and Can Employers Use It to Avoid Liability?

Ms. Lively’s Employers may attempt to argue that Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath were Ms. Lively’s co-workers (as opposed to her supervisors), so it may raise the Faragher/Ellerth defense. To prevail on this defense, the Employers must show that they exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior. Although Mr. Baldoni was the director of the Film and Mr. Heath was Wayfarer’s CEO, Ms. Lively also served as an executive producer of the Film, so whether the Employers can raise this defense is yet to be seen. 

What’s Next? Potential Legal Strategies and Outcomes

The defendants will undoubtedly move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s Amended Complaint. If they prevail in dismissing her Title VII claims, which seems doubtful based on her well-pled allegations, the case will likely be remanded to state court due to lack of federal jurisdiction. In the meantime, please contact me if you know how to stop the Meta apps from bombarding me with anti-Blake Lively content that I’m sure has absolutely nothing to do with the the smear campaign alleged in the Amended Complaint.

Have Questions About Title VII?

Please contact Fortis Law Partners employment law team with any questions about Title VII or other employment-based claims.

[1] All factual statements in this article originate from the Amended Complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York.

[2] Ms. Lively’s remaining claims include various claims for harassment and retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress,  defamation per se, and conspiracy.