Chanler

She contends that the ALA became binding on Baldoni and the producers at some point while the parties were still negotiating it.

This is the judge's words.

But she cannot pinpoint a time when the parties began to be bound by it or which version of the ALA they were bound to.

Unless both parties are bound, neither party is bound.

which draft of the ALA bound lively?

Was it the version that lacked the sexual harassment provision?

This is also what's interesting is I guess they were going back and forth about the language.

Her lawyers were putting new language into the contract.

And so the judge is saying, well, okay, you're saying that this agreement you never signed became binding, but you're not even, first of all, you never signed it.

Second of all, which one?

Right.

And that language was critical in order for her to be able to cite the agreement as protective.

Right, right.

As like, hey, we signed this thing and you didn't, you know, hold up your end of it.

Right, this was our agreement.

So a lot of people are saying that this is a technicality, okay?

And they're saying that, you know,

Okay, so she was an independent contractor, so she doesn't have these protections.

Well, actually under California FEHA, independent contractors can sue for sexual harassment.

But the judge said this was filled in New Jersey.