A federal judge in Manhattan threw out Blake Lively's sexual harassment claims against her "It Ends With Us" costar Justin Baldoni on Thursday, ruling that the actor's conduct during filming did not rise to the level of actionable harassment under federal law. The decision gutted a central pillar of Lively's lawsuit while leaving three other claims, including two retaliation claims, standing ahead of a trial scheduled to begin May 18.
Judge Lewis J. Liman's written ruling hinged on a distinction that Hollywood's cultural enforcers would rather not acknowledge: the difference between an actor improvising in a scene and a predator targeting a colleague. The judge found that Lively, as an independent contractor rather than an employee, could not bring sexual harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But he went further, evaluating the substance of the allegations themselves and finding them insufficient even on their own terms.
Lively's complaint described a slow dancing scene in which Baldoni allegedly leaned in as if to kiss her, kissed her forehead, rubbed his face and mouth against her neck, and made other physical gestures she characterized as unwelcome. Judge Liman laid out the allegations plainly before dismantling them:
"Assuming he was improvising, the conduct was not so far beyond what might reasonably be expected to take place between two characters during a slow dancing scene such that an inference of hostile treatment on the basis of sex would arise. At least in isolation, the conduct was directed to Lively's character rather than to Lively herself."
That distinction matters enormously. Actors perform intimate scenes. Directors push creative boundaries. The judge recognized that collapsing the line between a character's actions and a person's intentions would make the production of virtually any romantic drama a legal minefield, as Breitbart reports.
He stated the principle explicitly:
"Creative artists, no less than comedy room writers, must have some amount of space to experiment within the bounds of an agreed script without fear of being held liable for sexual harassment."
The ruling also addressed allegations that Baldoni discussed personal experiences related to sex during the creative process. Liman noted that it "may be fair grounds for an author or a director to discuss personal experiences, including those related to sex, as part of the creative process." In other words, uncomfortable conversations on a film set about a story involving domestic violence and complex relationships are not automatically evidence of harassment.
Lively's lawsuit, filed last December, contained over a dozen claims against Baldoni and other parties, including Wayfarer Studios and It Ends With Us Movie LLC. Among the more colorful allegations: Baldoni allegedly described something as "pretty hot" on set, allegedly pushed for Lively to perform a birth scene naked, volunteered that he had a prior addiction to pornography, and later announced to others that Lively said she had never seen pornography.
When confronted about one instance of conduct, Baldoni allegedly rolled his eyes and responded, "Sorry, I missed the sexual harassment training."
None of this is admirable behavior. But the court's job is not to adjudicate manners. It is to determine whether the conduct meets the legal threshold for harassment, and Judge Liman concluded it did not.
Importantly, the judge noted that some of these sexual-harassment-related allegations may still be presented to a jury in support of the surviving retaliation claims. The harassment theory is dead as an independent cause of action. Its factual residue lives on.
Three claims remain intact:
These will proceed to trial on May 18. The retaliation claims suggest Lively believes she faced professional consequences for raising her concerns, which is a narrower but potentially potent argument. The contract claim is more pedestrian but could carry real financial weight.
For his part, Baldoni and Wayfarer Studios had countersued Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, alleging defamation and extortion. Judge Liman dismissed those claims last June. Neither side has emerged from this litigation unscathed.
The "It Ends With Us" saga has been a spectacle since before the film's release in August 2024, when it debuted to $50 million at the box office amid rampant speculation over discord between Lively and Baldoni. What followed was a textbook example of how the post-#MeToo instinct to "believe all women" collides with due process when allegations actually reach a courtroom.
In the court of public opinion, allegations are verdicts. On social media, an accusation of harassment carries the same weight as a finding of harassment. The cultural machinery that turned Lively into a sympathetic figure and Baldoni into a villain operated on exactly this principle. The legal system, to its credit, operates on a different one.
Judge Liman's ruling does not say that nothing happened. It says that what allegedly happened does not constitute sexual harassment under federal law. That distinction used to be unremarkable. Now it requires a federal judge to write it down and explain it in detail, because an entire cultural establishment has lost the ability to hold two ideas simultaneously: that someone's behavior can be boorish and still not be illegal.
Lively, whose career stretches from "The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" in 2005 through "Gossip Girl" from 2007 to 2012, is not a novice to Hollywood sets. Baldoni, who directed "Five Feet Apart" in 2019, is not new to the pressures of filmmaking. Both are adults who entered a professional collaboration that went sideways. The legal system is now sorting out which grievances have legal merit and which are simply grievances.
May 18 will provide more answers. But Thursday's ruling already provided the most important one: the courtroom is not Twitter, and an accusation is not a conviction.
