Why Was Blake Lively's Harassment Claim Against Justin Baldoni Dismissed?

Blake Lively's sexual harassment claim against It Ends With Us co-star Justin Baldoni was thrown out by a New York judge on Wednesday in a pre-trial ruling that turned not on what allegedly happened between the actors, but on where it happened and how the law classifies Lively's role on set.

The ruling is the latest turn in a bitter legal fight that began in 2024, when Lively sued Baldoni and other defendants over their conduct during production of the Colleen Hoover adaptation. She accused Baldoni of sexual harassment, defamation and orchestrating a coordinated attempt to damage her career, while he has denied wrongdoing and filed a countersuit. What began as an on-set dispute has since spun out into a complex civil case now being carved down by the courts.

Judge Lewis Liman's 152-page opinion, issued in federal court, dismissed 10 of the 13 claims Lively brought against Baldoni. The scrapped counts included sexual harassment, defamation and conspiracy, leaving only breach of contract, retaliation and aiding and abetting retaliation to be decided by a jury at a civil trial scheduled for 18 May.

At the heart of the decision on the sexual harassment claim were two dry-sounding but decisive points of law: jurisdiction and employment status.

Harassment Claim Fell Outside California Law

Lively's sexual harassment count was brought under California law, even though, as Judge Liman notes, the alleged misconduct took place while It Ends With Us was filming in New Jersey.

In her complaint, Lively said Baldoni subjected her to unsolicited remarks about her appearance and weight, and that she regarded those comments as sexual harassment. The court did not rule on whether those comments were made or whether they were inappropriate. Instead, Judge Liman focused on the legal reach of the California statute Lively had invoked.

Quoting from his own opinion, he wrote: 'None of these acts or occurrences provides the 'substantial connection' to California needed to sustain Lively's sexual harassment claims.' In other words, even if everything Lively alleged were true, the conduct was too geographically detached from California for that state's workplace harassment provisions to apply.

It is a technical line to draw, but a consequential one. By locating the filming in New Jersey, the judge concluded that Lively's legal team had simply picked the wrong tool from the statutory toolbox. The case was not thrown out because a court decided Baldoni's behaviour was acceptable. It was thrown out because, on the face of the pleadings, California's laws could not be stretched that far.

Independent Contractor Status Undercut Other Harassment Claims

The second key barrier for Lively's harassment and retaliation allegations was her own status in the production.

Judge Liman found that Lively, starring in It Ends With Us, was operating as an independent contractor rather than as an employee. That distinction is not just a contractual quirk. Under the statutes she relied on, certain workplace protections and remedies are tied specifically to being an employee. If you fall outside that category, some claims become unavailable, however persuasive they might sound at a human level.

On that basis, the court ruled that Lively was 'not eligible' to bring particular harassment and retaliation claims. Again, this was not a factual exoneration of Baldoni, but a narrowing of what the law, as written, allows Lively to argue in this forum.

Her legal team has been quick to frame the decision exactly that way. Sigrid McCawley, one of Lively's lawyers, told CBS that the case 'has always been and will remain focused on the devastating retaliation and the extraordinary steps the defendants took to destroy' Lively's reputation. She argued the sexual harassment allegations were dismissed 'not because the defendants did nothing wrong' but because of what she characterised as a technicality.

The court's opinion does not take a view on whether Baldoni's alleged conduct was 'wrong' in a moral or professional sense. It simply holds that the specific legal hooks Lively tried to use do not fit the facts as presented.

What Remains Of Blake Lively's Case Against Justin Baldoni

Despite the sharp pruning, Lively's lawsuit is not over. Three claims against Baldoni survived the motion to dismiss and will now proceed towards trial: breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting retaliation.

In practice, those remaining counts keep the core of Lively's broader narrative alive. Her side argues that after she raised concerns about Baldoni's behaviour, unnamed defendants embarked on what McCawley calls 'devastating retaliation', allegedly taking 'extraordinary steps' to damage Lively's standing and career. Baldoni's camp, in its own filings and public stance, flatly denies orchestrating any such campaign.

The opinion released by Judge Liman offers no final answers on who is right. It is a gatekeeping document, not a verdict. Claims that met the legal thresholds will be tested in open court. Others, including the headline-grabbing sexual harassment count, will not be heard by a jury at all.

Nothing in the ruling confirms or disproves the underlying allegations, and much of what is claimed by both sides remains unproven. Until evidence is examined at trial and findings are made, all parties' accusations and defences should be treated with caution and, frankly, a pinch of salt.

For now, the technicalities have done what they often do in high-profile civil disputes. They have shaped which parts of a very public story the law is willing to hear, and which parts it will quietly set aside.