Nicole Rivelli /© Sony Pictures Releasing /Courtesy Everett Collection
Star power has made the Justin Baldoni-Blake Lively legal drama a source of endless headlines, but at its heart it’s a case of workplace sexual harassment.
As former federal prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys who’ve handled thousands of sex-based workplace cases — from claims of bosses “undressing employees with their eyes” to violent assaults — we’ve learned one universal truth: The devil is always in the details.
In this Hollywood saga, those devilish details are driving streams of hot takes.
Sexual harassment in any workplace is prohibited, and punishing it requires proof that conduct is “severe and pervasive.”
But consensual workplace flirtation? That’s an entirely different legal matter, and one that frequently complicates cases like these.
While this case is a long way from trial, Baldoni’s team has been releasing key pieces of evidence to further his defense. So far, it seems to be working.
If it continues on its current trajectory, we predict Baldoni will emerge as the bruised and bloodied victor.
The most damning evidence publicized thus far is an on-camera embrace between Baldoni and Lively as they filmed a scene in “It Ends With Us.” The co-stars were captured in a wide shot with their off-script conversation recorded in full.
Remember: These are professional actors who could have said anything to create the appearance of romantic banter. Instead, Lively is seen to engage in unnecessary flirtatious conversation and touching with Baldoni.
The extensive collection of text messages Baldoni has since released further substantiates that Lively welcomed, and often initiated, flirtatious workplace interactions.
In one text, she described the “flirty and yummy . . . ball-busting” she planned to employ in a romantic scene with him. “If you knew me (in person) longer you’d have a sense . . . It’s my love language,” she wrote.
As impactful as the text messages are, the video and audio say even more: That the flirtation between the two was being demonstrated publicly.
Yet now Lively claims their interactions were all unwelcome.
Here’s the plot twist: At some point, the banter did become unwanted.
The burning question is why, and the answer seems to involve Lively’s famous husband, Ryan Reynolds.
Most people, when feeling their boundaries are being tested in a professional setting, would have a simple conversation with their co-worker. Lively lawyered up instead.
Reynolds’ involvement in his wife’s work project was evident from his initial text to Baldoni before filming began, expressing an almost obsessive level of interest in its daily schedule.
“Thank you for understanding what it means to me personally to have my family reunited as soon as possible,” he wrote. “We’re hardwired for keeping our family together. It’s how to win us, and also how to kill us when we can’t. We never split up. Ever.”
At some point in the filming of this ill-fated flick, there was a dramatic shift: Lively turned stone-cold on her director/co-star, demanding dailies, script rewrites, and contractual modifications that bordered on the absurd.
This case screams “jealous husband” — one of the most common motives we’ve encountered in workplace harassment lawsuits.
As it proceeds, we’re particularly eager to hear how Lively and Reynolds describe their past conversations about the filming, and just how honest Lively was about her flirtatious behavior with a man her husband barely knew.
While they’ll likely try to deny it, the evidence of her sudden change in attitude suggests a more human reaction transpired.
Baldoni found himself between a rock and a hard place as he tried to complete his project. Once Lively drew her line in the sand, he had no choice but to respect it.
This case isn’t about performance — it’s about evidence.
Lively will likely maintain she simply reached her breaking point with Baldoni’s “inappropriate antics.” But the available evidence tells a different story.
If this reaches a jury, Baldoni’s legal team can weave a compelling narrative of scapegoating and setup. The strength of his position lies not in star power but in the documented timeline of events and communications.
Based on our extensive experience with similar cases, if evidence plays any part, Baldoni will emerge vindicated — legally, anyway.
As for Lively, she might well discover that the details of this legal drama cast her as the devil she claims to fear.
We wonder if Reynolds, in getting what the evidence suggests he wanted, will find it worth the price in the end.
In court, celebrities are just as human as the rest of us. And not even fame makes them immune to jealousy’s green-eyed monster.
Andrew Cherkasky (@CherkaskyLaw) and Katie Cherkasky (@CherkaskyKatie) are military veterans, former federal prosecutors and current criminal defense attorneys.