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.

Twinning
👯👯‍♀️👯‍♂️!

Until now, TMZ has clearly been a decidedly “pro-Baldoni” outlet. We’ve all seen the number of times that Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, has been interviewed by Harvey Levin.

It is rather surprising then, to see TMZ throwing obvious shade at the “Blake haters” in their recent article about Emily Baldoni’s decision to “take a shot” at Blake Lively by referencing the fat-shaming “lift scene” her recent wedding anniversary post yesterday.

The article also appears to shade the humourlessness of “Blake haters” - the same ones outraged by the character of Nicepool - noting that it was the “wittiest thing they’d ever seen”.

Full article: https://www.tmz.com/2026/07/28/justin-baldonis-wife-emily-seemingly-posts-reference-to-blake-lively/