Ex-Daily Mail Reporter Sues Paper Over 'Retaliation' After Being Fired for Covering Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni Case

Former Daily Mail senior showbiz reporter James Vituscka has filed a lawsuit against the newspaper in the Manhattan Supreme Court, alleging that he faced wrongful termination and whistleblower retaliation after becoming entangled in the high-profile legal battle between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni.

The lawsuit claims that the publication penalised him after a private text message exchange became public and subsequently central to court proceedings connected to the film It Ends With Us.

According to court filings, Vituscka was pulled into the litigation after communicating with representatives for both sides, leading to intense scrutiny over a text message where he mistakenly used the phrase 'sexually assaulted' instead of 'sexually harassed'.

While Vituscka later submitted a sworn declaration clarifying the typo, his relationship with management deteriorated rapidly, culminating in his departure.

Vituscka, who worked as a senior US showbiz reporter, filed the case in Manhattan Supreme Court and alleges that the Daily Mail retaliated against him after he challenged how his involvement in the dispute was handled.

How Vituscka Was Pulled Into the Hollywood Legal Fight

Citing court documents, Page Six reported on Tuesday that Vituscka became involved in the lawsuit after speaking with Blake Lively's longtime publicist, Leslie Sloane, as well as Baldoni's crisis publicist, Melissa Nathan, about the dispute surrounding It Ends With Us. His messages later became part of court proceedings connected to the litigation.

One message became particularly important after Vituscka referred to Lively as having been 'sexually assaulted'. He later clarified in a sworn declaration that he had used the wrong term and had intended to refer to sexual harassment allegations. He also stated that Sloane had never told him that Lively had been sexually harassed or assaulted by Baldoni.

According to court filings, Vituscka sought independent legal advice after his text messages were cited in the litigation, but Daily Mail allegedly pushed him to sign a declaration containing wording he was uneasy about, including a statement that he 'regretted' the conduct that brought him into the case.

Vituscka claims he repeatedly raised concerns about the proposed statement and argued that important context was missing. He says his objections ultimately led him to make a whistleblower complaint, after which his relationship with management deteriorated. The lawsuit alleges that his supervision changed and that he was dismissed in June 2025.

Daily Mail Rejects the Claims

The Daily Mail has strongly disputed Vituscka's version of events, saying it never pressured him to sign a statement that he believed was untrue and maintained that the declaration was consistent with information he had previously provided to senior management.

The outlet told Page Six that the lawsuit presented what it called 'an inaccurate account of the circumstances surrounding the declaration he signed' linked to the litigation.

'At no point did Daily Mail pressure James to sign a declaration he believed to be untrue,' the Daily Mail said in the statement. 'In fact, the declaration he signed was consistent with what he had already told senior management after the Baldoni complaint first came to our attention. As a trusted news organisation, we expect our journalists to act with honesty and integrity, and we rely upon that important expectation.'

In the final part of its statement, the Daily Mail disputed Vituscka's claims that he was a whistleblower subjected to 'retaliation,' 'discrimination,' or 'harassment,' describing the allegations as unsupported by evidence, adding, 'We are confident they will be soundly dismissed.'

As Lively and Baldoni end their long-running legal battle to an end through a settlement, the court proceedings have continued to generate additional disputes over media reporting.

A federal judge previously referenced Vituscka's involvement in the case, noting his explanation that his use of the term 'sexually assaulted' in a message was an error.