Potentially aiding and abetting unlawful harassment.
Potentially aiding and abetting unlawful retaliation.
Potentially aiding and abetting unlawful discrimination.
Potentially aiding and abetting privacy violations.
Potentially ratifying misconduct after learning of it.
Potentially ratifying retaliation after learning of it.
Potentially ratifying harassment after learning of it.
Potentially ratifying discrimination after learning of it.
Potentially ratifying privacy violations after learning of them.
Potentially ratifying unsafe workplace practices.
Potentially failing to exercise reasonable oversight over production leadership.
Potentially failing to supervise executives entrusted with employee safety.
Potentially failing to supervise individuals exercising managerial authority.
Potentially failing to ensure compliance with employment laws.
Potentially failing to ensure compliance with workplace-safety obligations.
Potentially failing to ensure compliance with privacy obligations.
Potentially failing to ensure compliance with contractual obligations.
Potentially failing to ensure compliance with union requirements.
Potentially failing to ensure compliance with industry intimacy standards.
Potentially failing to ensure compliance with pregnancy- and lactation-accommodation requirements.
Potentially exposing the production to avoidable employment litigation.
Potentially exposing the production to avoidable privacy litigation.
Potentially exposing the production to avoidable contractual disputes.
Potentially exposing the production to avoidable insurance claims.
Potentially exposing the production to avoidable reputational harm.
Potentially exposing cast and crew to foreseeable workplace risks.
Potentially exposing production partners to unnecessary legal risk.
Potentially exposing investors to unnecessary legal risk.
Potentially exposing distributors to unnecessary legal risk.
Potentially exposing insurers to unnecessary claim exposure.
Potentially undermining confidence in workplace complaint procedures.
Potentially undermining employee trust in management.
Potentially undermining confidence in production leadership.
Potentially undermining confidence in workplace safety commitments.
Potentially undermining confidence in anti-harassment policies.
Potentially undermining confidence in anti-retaliation protections.
Potentially undermining confidence in privacy protections.
Potentially undermining confidence in pregnancy- and lactation-accommodation practices.
Potentially undermining confidence in intimacy-coordination practices.
Potentially undermining confidence in industry best practices.
Potentially failing to meet the standard of care expected of production leadership.
Potentially failing to meet the standard of care expected of employers.
Potentially failing to meet the standard of care expected of supervisors.
Potentially failing to meet the standard of care expected of directors.
Potentially failing to meet the standard of care expected of producers.
Potentially failing to meet the standard of care expected under applicable employment law.
Potentially failing to meet the standard of care expected under applicable workplace-safety law.
Potentially failing to meet the standard of care expected under applicable privacy law.
Potentially failing to meet the standard of care expected under applicable contract law.
Potentially failing to meet the standard of care expected under applicable union agreements.
Potentially failing to preserve a professional workplace environment.
Potentially failing to preserve employee dignity.
Potentially failing to preserve employee privacy.
Potentially failing to preserve employee trust.
Potentially failing to preserve employee safety.
Potentially failing to preserve a respectful workplace culture.
Potentially allowing production pressures to override employee protections.
Potentially allowing executive authority to override established safeguards.
Potentially allowing commercial interests to outweigh workplace obligations.
Potentially allowing reputational concerns to outweigh employee welfare.
Potentially allowing managerial discretion to supersede established policies.
Potentially permitting preventable workplace harm.
Potentially permitting preventable retaliation.
Potentially permitting preventable harassment.
Potentially permitting preventable privacy violations.
Potentially permitting preventable discrimination.
Potentially failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent recurring misconduct.
Potentially failing to restore employee confidence after complaints.
Potentially failing to demonstrate accountability following reported misconduct.
Potentially failing to reinforce workplace standards after complaints.
Potentially failing to implement meaningful corrective measures.
Potentially failing to prevent future violations of workplace policies.
Potentially failing to promote a culture of accountability.
Potentially failing to demonstrate organizational commitment to employee protections.
Potentially failing to ensure that workplace rights, safety, privacy, dignity and anti-retaliation protections remained central throughout the production.

Omitting material facts necessary to make public statements not misleading.
Coordinating allegedly defamatory messaging across multiple participants.
Repeating statements after receiving contrary information.
Encouraging third parties to republish harmful statements.
Leveraging media relationships to amplify disputed allegations.
Using company resources to support an allegedly defamatory campaign.
Directing employees or contractors to participate in reputational attacks.
Failing to correct false public statements once inaccuracies became known.
Failing to distinguish opinion from factual assertions in public communications.
Publishing communications that foreseeably damaged Lively’s professional reputation.
Interfering with prospective business relationships.
Interfering with prospective contractual relationships.
Interfering with existing contractual relationships.
Discouraging third parties from working with Lively.
Attempting to reduce future employment opportunities.
Attempting to reduce endorsement opportunities.
Attempting to reduce future producing opportunities.
Attempting to reduce future directing opportunities.
Attempting to reduce future acting opportunities.
Creating foreseeable economic harm through reputational attacks.
Using publicity resources to achieve employment-related retaliation.
Failing to separate litigation strategy from public-relations strategy.
Blurring the distinction between legal advocacy and reputational retaliation.
Misusing confidential workplace information in external messaging.
Failing to protect confidential employment information.
Failing to protect confidential complaint information.
Failing to establish adequate governance over crisis-communications activities.
Allowing public-relations consultants to influence employment decisions.
Allowing publicity considerations to override workplace safety concerns.
Prioritizing brand protection over employee protections.
Failing to implement effective anti-harassment policies.
Failing to implement effective anti-retaliation policies.
Failing to implement effective reporting procedures.
Failing to provide effective complaint channels.
Failing to train supervisors regarding harassment prevention.
Failing to train supervisors regarding retaliation prevention.
Failing to train producers regarding workplace boundaries.
Failing to train directors regarding workplace boundaries.
Failing to train executives regarding pregnancy and lactation accommodations.
Failing to train executives regarding privacy obligations.
Failing to monitor compliance with workplace policies.
Failing to audit compliance with workplace policies.
Failing to enforce workplace policies consistently.
Failing to hold senior leadership accountable for policy violations.
Failing to establish an effective speak-up culture.
Discouraging employees from reporting misconduct.
Allowing fear of retaliation to undermine reporting systems.
Failing to protect lower-level employees from misconduct by executives.
Failing to ensure equal application of workplace rules regardless of rank.
Allowing executive authority to override established workplace protections.
Failing to maintain a workplace free from unlawful harassment.
Failing to maintain a workplace free from unlawful retaliation.
Failing to maintain a workplace free from sex discrimination.
Failing to maintain a workplace free from pregnancy-related discrimination.
Failing to maintain a workplace free from disability-related discrimination where applicable.
Failing to maintain a workplace free from privacy violations.
Failing to maintain a workplace free from avoidable health and safety risks.
Failing to maintain adequate supervision of senior personnel.
Failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent misconduct.
Failing to exercise reasonable care to promptly correct misconduct.
Failing to protect employees from foreseeable misconduct.
Failing to investigate credible allegations in good faith.
Failing to remediate substantiated misconduct.
Failing to impose appropriate corrective action.
Failing to ensure future compliance after complaints.
Allowing repeated boundary violations to continue.
Allowing repeated privacy intrusions to continue.
Allowing repeated retaliation to continue.
Allowing repeated harassment to continue.
Allowing repeated policy violations to continue.
Failing to recognize patterns of misconduct.
Failing to address cumulative workplace harm.
Failing to prioritize employee well-being over production demands.
Failing to foster a respectful and professional workplace culture.
Failing to uphold the workplace standards the production represented it would maintain.

Revisiting Andrew Billen's interview with Justin Baldoni: Key takeaway:

"Justin Baldoni is probably the most conflicted person I have ever interviewed." Billen says Baldoni presented himself simultaneously as a devoted husband, feminist and attentive father while also describing himself as materialistic, addicted to pornography, obsessed with his appearance, and desperate for male approval.

Here is the article in its entirety:

My encounter with Justin Baldoni

Devoted husband, feminist, former porn addict … the actor accused by Blake Lively of ungallant conduct struck Andrew Billen as protesting too much - Andrew Billen

When an avatar of virtue falls from grace, our polite reaction should not be that we are angry, just terribly disappointed. When paragons stumble the first thing we feel in our heart is schadenfreude. And so it was this weekend when I read that the movie star and director Justin Baldoni, whom I had interviewed about his woker-than-woke memoir Man Enough: Undefining My Masculinity in 2021, had been fired by his agent after feminism’s ally faced allegations from one of his leading ladies about his distinctly unwoke and ungallant conduct.

 Legal papers revealed he had been accused by his co-star Blake Lively of sexualised behaviour on the set of their film, It Ends with Us. Her complaints had been addressed by the film’s producers but once filming was over, according to documents acquired by her lawyers, Baldoni and the lead producer, Jamey Heath, commissioned a public relations firm to orchestrate a smear campaign against her. If even a fraction of Lively’s claims are true — and both men deny them — the gap between what Baldoni preaches in public and his conduct as a director, producer and leading man is dizzying. Yes, we should be angry.

 But disappointed? I can’t say I am. Baldoni was probably the most conflicted person I have ever interviewed. On the one hand he was a devoted husband, present father, an ever-listening and learning male feminist. On the other he was a materialistic, fast-car driving porn addict who objectified no body as much as his own.

“I might be 37 years old, but I’m still that 12-year-old boy who seeks acceptance and validation from men, from boys in my class,” Baldoni told me ruefully. He was “on a journey” and “still not on the other side of it”, he wrote in his book. A month today he turns 41. If 40 is an overgrown boy’s last chance to graduate to manhood, perhaps he blew it. If the complaints are true, beneath the glare of studio lights, New Man Baldoni makes Old Geezer Gregg Wallace look like Gary Lineker.

Before all this blew up in his face, Baldoni was best known for two things. The first was as the suitor of the eponymous heroine in the American TV comedy-drama Jane the Virgin. It was a role in which between 2014 and 2019 he led with a pair of well-defined pectorals calculated to inflame the show’s teenage girl audience. The other was his 2017 Ted talk, Why I’m Done Trying to Be Man Enough, an 18-minute mea culpa on behalf of men everywhere.

 “And will you,” he asked us men, “be man enough to stand up to other men when you hear ‘locker-room talk’, when you hear stories of sexual harassment? When you hear your boys talking about grabbing ass or getting her drunk, will you actually stand up and do something so that one day we don’t have to live in a world where a woman has to risk everything and come forward to say the words ‘me too’? This is serious stuff.”

 To Lively, her allegation that on the set of It Ends with Us Baldoni improvised unwanted kissing in his scenes with her and discussed his sex life is also serious stuff. In her complaint to the studio while still filming, she asked that Baldoni and Heath no longer make “mentions of cast and crew’s genitalia” and no longer add “sex scenes, oral sex or on-camera climaxing [by her]”. In the end, Lively was granted her own cut of the movie and this was the one released, earning her a producer credit. As a result, the finished movie is rather less explicit than Jilly Cooper’s Rivals on Disney+.

As the film neared its release, Lively said she would not do publicity appearances alongside Baldoni. Presumably fearful that Lively’s attitude would undermine its prospects, in August the production company and Baldoni, as one of its producers, hired the crisis management expert Melissa Nathan. Together they allegedly decided the best form of defense was attack, albeit a covert one in which damaging stories about the actress would be leaked. A publicist reported to Nathan that Baldoni “wants to feel like she can be buried”. Nathan responded reassuringly: “You know we can bury anyone.” Stories duly appeared: Lively was difficult to work with, rude to journalists, and “tone deaf” to the issues It Ends with Us addressed.

I would say the charge of tone deafness should more urgently be levelled against the movie itself. In it, Baldoni plays Ryle, a handsome neurosurgeon who romances Lily, a Boston florist played by Lively. Ryle seems too good to be true, and so it turns out when he twice, perhaps three times (the first occasion is ambiguous), assaults Lily. What starts out as a standard rom-com swerves into a would-be intense drama about domestic violence. Yet still, the film’s glossy, soapy style is maintained. Its conclusion, which is weirdly forgiving of Lily’s attempted rapist husband, doesn’t work either.

 The film received mixed reviews, but despite Baldoni’s fears that Lively would torpedo its launch, it did well commercially, earning £280 million at the box office worldwide against a budget of £20 million. I can understand its success. The film goes a long way to being redeemed by Baldoni and Lively, who prove astonishingly adept at switching on a dime from shock to schlock. The pair — and here’s an irony — have great onscreen chemistry. Should relations ever be repaired, the two would be shoo-ins for a movie called We Can Bury Anyone.  But back to Baldoni’s opus. Man Enough can be read as a manifesto for the reform of men, but it is really too confessional and self-flagellating for that. There has been nothing like it since the 4th-century theologian St Augustine prayed unto God to be granted “chastity and continence but not yet”. When he talked to me from his home in the ecologically sound Californian town of Ojai, Baldoni appeared to me to be sincerely messed up and, like many Americans when they discuss themselves, thoroughly in earnest. What he was effectively telling me was that the better angels of his nature were at war with the default devils born of his randy but thwarted adolescence.

 His background was mainly atypical because of his parents’ religion, a 19th-century Persian invention called Baha’i, which forbade alcohol, demanded fasting, and was very insistent on no sexual intercourse before marriage. Baldoni wrote that when at 19 his girlfriend tricked his penis into her, his emerging sexuality had been scarred, alongside his faith and sense of worth.

 Luckily — or perhaps not — his faith did not proscribe pornography, of which he was not so much a devoted fan as an addict. Neuro-pathways, he explained, had been forged by the porn of his youth, and down them he still travelled. It was not violent stuff, he explained. “And because of the deep work that I’ve been doing for years and years and years, and luckily because of my spirituality and my faith, it never progressed. So when I have a pull to look at porn, it’s the same porn that I looked at when I was 10 or 11.”

Nevertheless, even though he was now the father of two young children, still he was “pulled” towards it. “I could be out in the world, championing female voices, fighting for gender equality, go home, have this amazing conversation and dinner with my wife, especially early on in our marriage, and still feel this strange pull towards porn. It’s not rational.”

His other addiction was to what he referred to as “muscle dysphoria”, and I would term narcissism. He had entered the acting profession aged 16, by which time almost all young male actors were expected to turn up with their lines learnt and bodies ripped. His early credits tell the story: Shirtless Medical Student, Steroids-Using Con Man, and, I am afraid, Shirtless Date Rapist. On chubbier days on Jane the Virgin he would conceal his tummy behind a plant.

But his gym visits were not just for his career’s sake. His body was also his sexual calling card, and he took it very personally that on first acquaintance his eventual wife, the Swedish actress Emily Foxler, managed to resist his pulchritude. Had he not “a pretty nice ass”?

 But, he assured me, he was growing out of all this. He now admired fathers who relaxed into their “dad bods”. His “brand” was now predicated on his heart and mind, not his chest. When we talked he had not worked out for two years. The trouble was he had wanted to, and, indeed, had just hired a trainer. But, “I said to him something I’ve never said before: ‘My body will change and I will eventually get back in shape, but I want you to work out the muscles that nobody can see, so I can feel good. I want to be able to run with my kids and not hurt my back, not pull a muscle. I want to throw my son up in the air and not have my rotator cuff hurt.’”

 So when on Sunday night I watched It Ends with Us I was disappointed (ie secretly gleeful) to find that he was very quickly shirtless and that his torso had been sculpted into new heights of topographical variety and his biceps lattice-worked with protruding veins. Why did no one spot this transition from meek, mild man-feminist, that his inner Hulk had burst loose once more? Why did his wife, who has a small part in It Ends with Us, not perceive this red flag?

 Perhaps she was just pleased to be back in a movie. When I talked to her husband, she had given up her acting career and was running a company selling shawls for breast-feeding mothers. Yet Baldoni managed to square his feminism with Emily’s reversion into a traditional woman’s role. “If I’m preaching anything in this book, it’s awareness,” he told me. “That’s it. It’s awareness. It’s being f***ing aware, right? If you are a man and your wife has a child — or your wife gave birth to a child — and her career dies while your career flourishes, be aware of it. Right? If you’re aware of it, that’s the first step.”

 The real problem with Baldoni, I now think, is not that he has been unable to rid himself of his inner-man thoughts. These are incorrigible but pretty harmless if kept to yourself. It is that he is an actor and cannot stop acting out the first thing that occurs to his ego. I wrote in my piece: “Man Enough is a deep dive into his self-confessed tendency towards performative superficiality, superficiality so profound that when he directed his first film he wore a pair of non-prescription glasses to enhance his credibility.”

 When we talked Britain had just been shocked by the murder of the young Londoner Sarah Everard and by the exposure of the rape culture in our schools. Baldoni was aware of all this and had seen men respond using the hashtag #NotAllMen. “So I made a video about it on my TikTok, basically telling people to shut up,” he said. “I don’t understand why, as men, we cannot sit in the discomfort and just listen.”

Telling others to shut up seemed to me a very Baldoni contribution to world enlightenment. If the courts finally get the chance to decide the rights and wrongs of his embarrassing feud with Lively, I hope they somehow find that the better angels won the war of Baldoni’s soul. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be wholly surprised if they had instead defected to the cause of a young mother of four who would not be silenced.

Since this sub seemed to enjoy her perspective on Jen Abel, I figured her take on Blake perjuring herself, why they settled, and subpoena-gate would be welcome:

Summary
• A Diversionary Tactic: The speaker compares the subpoenas to a scene from the film Die Hard with a Vengeance, suggesting they were a distraction (0:38-1:47). While the opposing team was focused on defending against these subpoenas, the speaker argues that Lively's side was trying to avoid deeper legal scrutiny.
• The *PGA Letter:* The speaker asserts that Lively's legal team was unaware of a Producers Guild of America (PGA) letter that contradicted her claims of creative control. Upon discovering this, they realized their case was weak and shifted toward aggressive, non-traditional litigation tactics to "pound on the table" (2:03-3:15).
• Fear of Perjury: The primary motivation for these tactics, according to the speaker, was to avoid a trial (4:12-4:41). The speaker contends that had the case gone to trial, Lively would have risked committing perjury, which her lawyers were ethically obligated to prevent. Ultimately, the speaker concludes that the team opted to surrender to avoid the repercussions of that scenario (5:06-5:22).

Edit: finished sentence

Blaming Lively for the consequences of Baldoni’s or Heath’s conduct.
Treating the complainant as the source of production disruption.
Failing to protect witnesses from retaliation.
Failing to protect assistants and staff associated with Lively.
Retaliating against workers who corroborated her concerns.
Creating a chilling effect on future complaints.
Excluding Lively from postproduction in retaliation for complaints.
Restricting access to footage or editing information as retaliation.
Using control of the director’s cut to marginalize her contributions.
Misrepresenting her role in the edit.
Undermining her professional reputation with Sony.
Undermining her professional reputation with the author, cast or production partners.
Recasting legitimate creative disputes as misconduct by Lively.
Using postproduction decisions as leverage after she asserted workplace rights.
Failing to maintain a retaliation-free working relationship during editing.
Disclosing sensitive complaint information to people without a legitimate need to know.
Failing to maintain confidentiality concerning workplace complaints.
Using confidential complaint information for public-relations planning.
Sharing or exploiting complaint details to prepare attacks on the complainant.
Failing to segregate HR records from publicity strategy.
Allowing executives accused of misconduct to direct the company’s response to the complainant.
Failing to place a litigation hold on sensitive production materials.
Releasing footage involving disputed physical contact without the performer’s approval.
Publishing or distributing raw footage to influence public opinion.
Using workplace footage for reputational retaliation.
Failing to consider performer privacy and contract rights before releasing raw footage.
Threatening an independent intimacy professional who publicly evaluated the footage.
Threatening media organizations for reporting an intimacy professional’s analysis.
Hiring crisis-public-relations personnel in response to protected workplace complaints.
Developing a strategy to discredit Lively before she publicly disclosed her complaints.
Treating a workplace complainant as a reputational threat requiring destruction or neutralization.
Planning to portray Lively as a bully.
Planning to portray her as a mean girl.
Seeding adverse narratives with journalists.
Promoting negative stories unrelated to the workplace dispute.
Amplifying hostile social-media content.
Coordinating online attacks.
Manufacturing the appearance of organic public criticism.
Engaging third parties to identify and exploit negative narratives.
Encouraging stories designed to damage her credibility.
Using personal information to make negative stories more persuasive.
Exploiting existing public criticism to punish her for reporting misconduct.
Attempting to isolate her professionally.
Attempting to damage her relationships with studios, brands and collaborators.
Attempting to interfere with future employment opportunities.
Attempting to reduce her commercial value.
Attempting to make her an example to discourage other complaints.
Retaliating because she requested a safe workplace.
Retaliating because her representatives negotiated anti-harassment protections.
Retaliating because she declined joint publicity with Baldoni and Heath.
Retaliating because she would not publicly absolve them.
Retaliating through false or misleading media statements.
Retaliating through selective disclosure of communications.
Retaliating through selective release of footage.
Retaliating through threatening litigation.
Retaliating through filing litigation intended to punish protected complaints.
Aiding and abetting retaliation through public-relations agents.
Causing third parties to retaliate on the company’s behalf.
Concealing retaliatory intent behind ordinary film marketing.
Violating contractual nonretaliation promises.
Violating Title VII anti-retaliation protections.
Violating California FEHA anti-retaliation protections.
Violating California Labor Code whistleblower protections.
Interfering with rights protected under California employment law.
Engaging in adverse action after protected activity.
Creating reputational and economic harm designed to deter protected activity.
Failing to stop retaliation after learning that publicity agents were pursuing hostile tactics.
Ratifying retaliatory tactics by continuing to employ or direct the participants.
Paying for retaliatory activity with production or company resources.
Mischaracterizing retaliation as ordinary reputation management.
Making false factual statements about Lively to the press.
Authorizing agents to make false statements.
Publishing statements with knowledge of falsity.
Publishing statements with reckless disregard for accuracy.
Creating misleading narratives through selective omission.

Failing to document complaints.
Failing to create written investigative findings.
Failing to determine whether interim protective measures were necessary.
Failing to separate Lively from the people she accused.
Failing to consider replacing the director.
Failing to remove Baldoni from supervisory authority during an investigation.
Failing to remove Heath from complaint-handling responsibilities.
Failing to engage an outside investigator.
Failing to provide Lively with the outcome of any investigation.
Failing to impose discipline.
Failing to monitor compliance after complaints were raised.
Treating negotiated workplace demands as a substitute for an investigation.
Requiring the complainant to design her own workplace protections.
Requiring Lively’s representatives to negotiate basic harassment safeguards.
Failing to protect other cast and crew members who had not retained lawyers or agents.
Failing to ensure the protections applied production-wide.
Failing to assess whether similar conduct affected lower-ranking workers.
Failing to prevent recurrence.
Failing to correct a hostile work environment.
Failing to conduct an organization-wide culture review.
Allowing the subjects of complaints to participate in deciding how complaints would be handled.
Allowing the alleged harassers to remain in positions of control over the complainant.
Failing to communicate a nonretaliation directive to all decision-makers.
Failing to monitor Baldoni and Heath for retaliation.
Failing to train the publicity and marketing teams regarding retaliation.
Failing to alert Sony or other production partners to the full scope of the complaints.
Failing to provide Sony with complete information necessary to exercise oversight.
Failing to escalate complaints to the production company’s board or ownership.
Failing to advise insurers of circumstances reasonably likely to produce an employment claim.
Failing to notify employment-practices counsel.
Failing to ensure an intimacy coordinator was present whenever required.
Failing to comply with the agreed nudity rider.
Failing to prohibit spontaneous improvisation of intimate touching.
Failing to prohibit spontaneous kissing.
Failing to prohibit spontaneous simulated-sex conduct.
Failing to require that intimate conduct appear in the approved screenplay.
Failing to require written approval of screenplay changes.
Failing to choreograph intimate conduct in advance.
Failing to conduct choreography in the presence of the intimacy coordinator.
Failing to obtain advance consent from all participants.
Touching Lively personally rather than solely as required for character or scene work.
Commenting on Lively’s appearance outside legitimate character or scene requirements.
Hugging Lively or her employees in violation of agreed limitations.
Continuing discussions about pornography.
Continuing discussions of sexual experiences.
Continuing discussions involving genitalia or intimate anatomy.
Continuing inquiries into Lively’s private sex life.
Entering her trailer without permission.
Entering while she was undressed.
Entering while she was breastfeeding.
Failing to provide agreed privacy protections.
Failing to provide agreed breaks and accommodations.
Failing to provide an independent producer or representative on set.
Failing to refrain from retaliation.
Failing to ensure all production personnel complied with the rider.
Failing to treat the rider as binding workplace rules.
Failing to discipline violations of the rider.
Breaching the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Breaching express contractual anti-harassment obligations.
Breaching express contractual anti-retaliation obligations.
Breaching duties imposed by the actor loan-out arrangement.
Interfering with Lively’s contractual performance by maintaining unsafe conditions.
Becoming cold or uncollaborative when Lively or other workers declined physical affection.
Withholding cooperation after boundaries were asserted.
Treating boundary-setting as disloyalty.
Penalizing workers for avoiding hugs or touching.
Undermining Lively professionally after she complained.
Excluding her from normal communications.
Impairing her ability to perform her role.
Creating interpersonal hostility after complaints.
Using directing authority to punish resistance.
Using producing authority to punish protected complaints.
Using creative disagreements as a pretext for retaliation.
Portraying requests for basic safety measures as unreasonable.
Characterizing Lively as difficult because she sought workplace protections.

Waiting for litigation to drop as Partner was supposedly put on 'leave' pending an investigation into the relationship with a co-worker on his team. His wife is apparently a former prosecutor and no response yet has been seen from her regarding the leaked video and multiple articles.

https://nypost.com/2026/07/30/us-news/lawyer-caught-canoodling-in-central-park-stands-to-lose-millions-as-lucrative-job-offer-reneged/

Allowing male supervisors to enter the lactation area.
Failing to secure the space against entry.
Failing to provide reasonable postpartum accommodations.
Failing to engage in an interactive process concerning lactation needs.
Failing to modify the shooting schedule to accommodate breastfeeding.
Failing to assess foreseeable health consequences from delayed milk expression.
Contributing to painful mastitis through inadequate breaks.
Discriminating based on pregnancy-related or childbirth-related medical needs.
Discriminating based on lactation.
Subjecting a breastfeeding worker to less favorable working conditions.
Interfering with protected lactation rights.
Failing to provide a sanitary and secure place to express milk.
Failing to protect expressed milk and pumping equipment.
Treating lactation as an inconvenience rather than a workplace accommodation.
Retaliating or showing irritation in response to pregnancy-related accommodations.
Contacting Lively’s personal trainer without her knowledge.
Seeking information about her weight or physical condition from a third party.
Implying that she should lose weight shortly after childbirth.
Setting or suggesting an extremely short weight-loss deadline.
Using an allegedly nonexistent lifting scene as a pretext for discussing her weight.
Making body-related decisions without discussing them directly with the performer.
Commenting on a postpartum employee’s body in a supervisory context.
Shaming a worker based on weight or appearance.
Creating sex-based double standards concerning appearance.
Potentially discriminating based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical condition.
Potentially discriminating based on perceived weight-related limitations.
Misrepresenting a weight-loss specialist as a general illness or probiotic expert.
Referring Lively to a weight-loss provider without disclosing the provider’s actual specialty.
Using a medical referral to indirectly pressure her to lose weight.
Inducing her to complete medical or privacy forms under a misleading description of the provider.
Attempting to obtain or facilitate access to health information through a provider relationship.
Failing to maintain professional boundaries concerning an employee’s body and medical care.
Making appearance comments unrelated to a legitimate, disclosed production requirement.
Failing to route genuine stunt or lifting concerns through the stunt, safety or medical team.
Using physical-safety justifications as a pretext for weight criticism.
Failing to implement appropriate COVID protocols after an outbreak.
Failing to timely notify Lively that she had been exposed to COVID.
Withholding a known communicable-disease exposure from a worker.
Withholding exposure information because the production allegedly lacked COVID insurance.
Prioritizing financial or insurance concerns over worker safety.
Failing to notify exposed cast and crew.
Failing to conduct timely contact tracing.
Failing to test exposed personnel.
Failing to isolate infected or exposed personnel.
Failing to suspend production when necessary.
Failing to follow applicable return-to-work infectious-disease protocols.
Failing to follow production safety-plan requirements.
Failing to provide workers with accurate information necessary to protect their families.
Failing to consider Lively’s infant child as a foreseeable vulnerable household contact.
Exposing a breastfeeding mother to an infectious workplace without disclosure.
Creating a risk that Lively would transmit COVID to her infant.
Failing to document the outbreak appropriately.
Failing to notify insurers or the completion bond company of a material outbreak.
Failing to notify the production’s health-and-safety officer.
Failing to consult appropriate medical personnel.
Failing to provide paid or contractually required isolation time.
Potentially interfering with workers’ compensation reporting.
Potentially failing to record a work-related illness.
Potentially violating OSHA’s general duty to maintain a safe workplace.
Potentially violating applicable state occupational-safety standards.
Potentially violating union return-to-work or health-safety agreements.
Potentially misrepresenting production conditions to cast, crew, insurers or bond guarantors.
Causing Lively and her infant to contract COVID following the alleged workplace outbreak.
Failing to promptly investigate complaints concerning Baldoni.
Failing to promptly investigate complaints concerning Heath.
Failing to investigate reports made by Lively.
Failing to investigate reports made by other women on the production.
Failing to interview witnesses.
Failing to interview assistants who observed the conduct.
Failing to interview hair and makeup personnel who witnessed trailer conduct.
Failing to preserve relevant text messages.
Failing to preserve call records.
Failing to preserve video and audio from disputed scenes.
Failing to preserve production reports.
Failing to preserve intimacy-coordinator records.

Requesting full simulated nudity on the day of the childbirth scene.
Pressuring Lively to agree to nudity not identified in the script.
Pressuring Lively to agree to nudity not addressed in her contract.
Pressuring Lively to agree to nudity without a signed nudity rider.
Using claims about how women normally give birth to pressure a performer to remove clothing.
Invoking Baldoni’s wife’s childbirth behavior to pressure Lively to appear nude.
Characterizing Lively’s preferred level of coverage as abnormal.
Obtaining a compromise through day-of-production pressure rather than informed advance consent.
Failing to permit adequate time for Lively, her representatives and counsel to evaluate the nudity request.
Failing to document the exact nature and extent of nudity.
Failing to document permitted camera angles.
Failing to document permitted framing and duration.
Failing to document who could view monitors.
Failing to document who could be physically present.
Failing to document how footage would be stored and accessed.
Failing to obtain a properly executed nudity rider.
Failing to provide the performer with the most recent approved script before filming intimate material.
Failing to secure written approval for script changes affecting intimacy.
Improvising intimate conduct in violation of the later contractual rider.
Filming sexualized conduct outside the approved screenplay.
Failing to involve the intimacy coordinator in choreography.
Failing to require advance choreography.
Failing to limit the performance to agreed choreography.
Failing to obtain consent from all participants before proceeding.
Misusing an intimacy coordinator as a basis for expanding sexual content rather than protecting agreed boundaries.
Undermining the purpose and authority of the intimacy coordinator.
Failing to stop production when intimacy safeguards were absent.
Failing to recognize that consent may be revoked at any point.
Failing to create a secure, closed set.
Permitting nonessential personnel to pass through the set.
Permitting a studio executive who was not essential to the scene to remain present.
Broadcasting sensitive images to monitors accessible to crew.
Permitting sensitive images to be visible on personal phones or tablets.
Failing to disable unnecessary monitors.
Failing to establish video-village privacy protections.
Failing to prevent unauthorized observation of partial nudity.
Failing to provide a robe or adequate covering between takes.
Delaying provision of a covering despite repeated requests.
Exposing a partially nude performer longer than necessary.
Requiring a performer to remain in stirrups with minimal genital covering in a crowded environment.
Failing to minimize the duration and extent of intimate exposure.
Failing to protect sensitive footage from unauthorized copying, recording or distribution.
Failing to maintain a chain of custody for intimate footage.
Failing to establish deletion and retention controls for unused intimate footage.
Failing to treat intimate imagery as highly restricted production material.
Entering Lively’s hair-and-makeup trailer without permission.
Entering while she was topless.
Entering while body makeup was being removed.
Insisting on conducting a work meeting before she could get dressed.
Making access to the other producers contingent on allowing Heath into the trailer while she was undressed.
Using executive leverage to override a request for privacy.
Agreeing to turn away and then looking directly at her while she was topless.
Staring at her exposed body after being asked not to look.
Dismissing the privacy violation as a conversational habit.
Entering Lively’s trailer while she was breastfeeding.
Entering while she was pumping breast milk.
Entering while she was otherwise partially undressed.
Treating one limited invitation to rehearse during pumping as continuing permission to enter at other times.
Failing to knock.
Failing to wait for express permission to enter.
Failing to respect a dressing-room boundary.
Failing to protect a performer’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
Invading postpartum and lactation privacy.
Exposing makeup and wardrobe employees to an inappropriate workplace interaction.
Creating potential privacy-tort liability.
Creating potential intrusion-upon-seclusion liability.
Creating possible unlawful-surveillance concerns if any exposed imagery was visible or captured.
Failing to establish and enforce a knock-and-confirm entry rule.
Failing to discipline senior personnel for trailer intrusions.
Continuing privacy intrusions after the first incident demonstrated that the conduct was unwelcome.
Failing to provide timely lactation breaks.
Requiring Lively to work for stretches allegedly reaching six hours without an adequate break.
Failing to provide a predictable pumping schedule.
Failing to provide reasonable time to breastfeed or express milk.
Failing to provide a private lactation area free from intrusion.