Lively's MSJ opposition actually weakens her retaliation claim
I think there is a small detail in Lively’s MSJ opposition that essentially destroys their retaliation claim.
They’re trying to argue that WP couldn’t have been defending themselves because Lively had not gone public with her claims until the CRD complaint. However, in admitting that she never went public with her claims until then, they are essentially saying that all the negative press that WP was responding to had nothing to do with protected activity. They have actually just affirmed what WP have been saying this whole time, that it was a PR war they were defending themselves against, nothing to do with SH.
We have all seen the negative articles that were circulating about Baldoni at the time, and it is clear that WP was responding to them, not going on an offensive or pre-emptory attack of Lively. The first articles that came out were hit pieces on Baldoni, not Lively. It is abundantly clear that if there had not been any bad press, they would never have taken any public action at all. Even the planning doc that Lively claims is a ‘smoking gun’, states how they could respond if her grievances became public. So if those initial hit pieces and bad press on Baldoni were not her coming forward with her claims, then it’s not protected activity, and then any response that WP had to it cannot be retaliation. It’s the essence of the ‘but for’ argument that is essential to proving retaliation. She has to show that their actions took place because of her protected activity, even if just in part.
Before the MSJ came out I had thought that Lively might try and say that some of those articles were protected activity, the ones that talked about him being problematic on set, because then she has a stronger claim. But it would seem she doesn’t want to admit to planting those stories or accept responsibility for starting the PR war. Which makes sense, because it paints her as the aggressor. But at the same time, I think it’s opened a giant hole in her case, and I hope WP go after that in their response.
I’m honestly surprised that her lawyers have made this argument, because it feels like a giant unforced error. Am I missing something? How does this help them? It just feels like once again, Lively is responsible for her own downfall. And that’s what happens when your entire case is built on hypocrisy and falsehoods.
Posted Dec 7, 2025, 10:50 PM UTC