As an industry built on storytelling, the entertainment world walks a fine line between performance and reality. But when that line becomes the focus of a lawsuit, courts must determine where creative expression ends and legal liability begins. That concept sits at the center of actress Blake Lively’s lawsuit against co-star Justin Baldoni, after a federal judge dismissed the majority of her claims, including her sexual harassment claim, while allowing a limited number to proceed to trial.[1] This dispute stems from the 2024 film It Ends With Us, where Lively alleges that Baldoni and other defendants, including Baldoni’s production company, Wayfarer Studios, launched a smear campaign against her.[2] The alleged campaign followed Lively’s allegations of Baldoni’s inappropriate on-set conduct toward her, “including an unwelcome on-set kiss and entering her dressing room without warning while she was nude”—allegations that Baldoni strongly denies.[3] It Ends With Us follows a flower shop owner who marries a neurosurgeon, but as his behavior becomes increasingly abusive, their relationship unravels while she reconnects with her first love.[4]
On April 2, 2026, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman dismissed ten of Lively’s thirteen claims—including sexual harassment, defamation, and conspiracy—while allowing claims for breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting retaliation to proceed to trial in May 2026.[5] Judge Liman reasoned that Lively could not pursue her sexual harassment claims under federal law because she was an independent contractor rather than an employee.[6]
The viability of Lively’s sexual harassment claims turns on the statutory scope of protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), which prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual regarding “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” on the basis of sex, amongst other things.[7] Here, sexual harassment is actionable if the behavior in question “explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”[8] Importantly, Title VII applies only to employees, not independent contractors.[9] So, here, worker classification is the threshold issue that must be answered before the merit of any sexual harassment claims can be reached. Conversely, in California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act’s (“FEHA”) broad scope extends protection from “unlawful harassment” to independent contractors.[10] Still, Judge Liman contended that Lively’s claim under FEHA fails because “the alleged wrongful conduct took place” outside of California.”[11]
Judge Liman issued his 152-page decision after more than a year of litigation surrounding the film.[12] Lively’s ability to pursue her sexual harassment claims under Title VII ultimately turns on one issue: whether creative professionals, like Lively in this instance, qualify as employees, to be entitled to federal statutory protections. In Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, the court applied the common-law test from Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid to determine whether Lively is an employee or an independent contractor; ultimately finding that Lively is an independent contractor.[13] Some of the Reid factors the court considered include: (1) the skill required, (2) whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party, (3) the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work, (4) the method of payment, among others.[14] To this point, Judge Liman emphasized several factors supporting Lively’s independent contractor status, including her project-based compensation and her ability to negotiate creative terms, such as script approval and marketing input.[15] Even though Baldoni directed Lively’s performance during filming, the court further held that such control is inherent to filmmaking and is not enough to “confer on her the status of employee.”[16] Similarly, the exclusivity provisions that Lively was subject to did not negate her broader “economic independence,” as concluded by the court.[17] In fact, the court noted that Lively was paid per project rather than by the hour and received equity in the film, further supporting her classification as an independent contractor.[18] Moreover, the court noted that Baldoni was “subject to constraints on his creative freedom,” as he had to “get Lively’s assent if he wanted to depart from the script.”[19] By way of the factual application of the Reid factors to Lively’s case, this opinion reflects a narrower approach to extending liability for conduct that occurs within the creative process itself.
As the case moves towards trial, this legal battle highlights an evident reality in entertainment law: that courts likely view actors as independent contractors. Judge Liman’s opinion reflects the courts’ reluctance to treat performers as employees, especially if the circumstances during production show that they exercised tangible control over their work and contracts. The decision reflects the courts’ attempts to defer to the profession’s common standards by balancing the entertainment industry’s practices with the need to apply established legal standards. From this perspective, Lively arguably suggests that individuals with significant bargaining power and creative input may not fit neatly into traditional workplace protections. Following this opinion, the court is set to examine the remaining claims for breach of contract, retaliation, and aiding and abetting retaliation in the upcoming month.
[1] Lauren Berg, Blake Lively’s Sex Harassment Claim Tossed As Suit Proceeds, Law360 (Apr. 2, 2026), https://www.law360.com/articles/2461393/blake-lively-s-sex-harassment-claim-tossed-as-suit-proceeds.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Stephanie McNeal, What Is Going on With the It Ends With Us Controversy, Glamour (Aug. 9, 2024), thttps://www.glamour.com/story/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-it-ends-with-us.
[5] Mirna Alsharif, Blake Lively vows to keep fighting after judge dismisses most claims in Justin Baldoni lawsuit, NBC News (Apr. 4, 2026), https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/blake-lively-vows-keep-fighting-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-rcna266701.
[6] Jonathan Stempel & Luc Cohen, US judge tosses Blake Lively’s sexual harassment case against Justin Baldoni, Reuters (Apr. 2, 2026), https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-dismisses-most-blake-livelys-claims-against-justin-baldoni-2026-04-02/.
[7] Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964 (last visited Apr. 20, 2026).
[8] Fact Sheet: Sexual Harassment Discrimination, U.S. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n (Jan. 15, 1997), https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/fact-sheet-sexual-harassment-discrimination.
[9] Brian Spitz, Title VII Does Not Protect Non-Employees: Know If You Are Covered, Call The Right Attorney (Mar. 27, 2025), https://www.calltherightattorney.com/blog/2025/03/title-vii-does-not-protect-non-employees-know-if-you-are-covered/.
[10] Employment Discrimination, California Civil Rights Department https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/employment/ (last visited Apr. 20, 2026); Anja Simic, A Guide to California Independent Contractor Laws, deel (Jan. 31, 2025), https://www.deel.com/blog/independent-contractor-laws-in-california/.
[11] Stempel & Cohen, supra note 6.
[12] Id.
[13] Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC, No. 24-cv-10049, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73061, at *116 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 2, 2026).
[14] Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 751 (1989).
[15] Berg, supra note 1.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.