Sean Kent

Päätöksentekijällä voi katsoa asiaa ja sanoa, että ei ole materiaalisia asioita, jotka ovat kyseisissä. Voin tehdä päätöksentekijänä päätöksentekijänä. Joten he ovat tulleet päätöksentekijälle ja sanoneet, että nämä ovat asioita, joita olemme molemmat ymmärtäneet on tapahtunut.

Jos jäsen sanoo, että se ei ole vastuussa, täällä on laki, minä voin tehdä päätöksen, koska mitä en halua, että jäsen voi tehdä, on tehdä väärän päätöksen lakiin, koska jäsen on jäsen lakiin, jäsen on jäsen faktoihin. Joten jos on faktaalisia asioita vastuussa, se menee oikein.

Jos jotain voidaan päättää lainsäädäntöön, lainsäädäntö on sellaista, mitä kutsumme järjestelmällä. Hän pysyvät järjestelmään ja varmistaa, ettei järjestelmää lähetetä väärin järjestelmään. Ja se on lainsäädäntö, joka aloittaa ennen lainsäädäntöä. Jopa tässä tapauksessa, ovatko he erottaneet tietoja? Hän sanoi, että hän oli seksuaalisesti harrastunut. Hän sanoi, että hän ei ollut seksuaalisesti harrastunut, mutta lainsäädäntö on edelleen tehty lainsäädäntöä lainsäädäntöön.

Ja arvostan, että sanoit sitä. He edelleen epäilevät siitä, oliko hän seksuaalisesti harrastunut. Justin Baldonin kanssa ei ollut seksuaalisesti harrastunut. Hän sanoo, että kyllä sinä olit seksuaalisesti harrastunut. Hän sanoo, että sinä olit luotannut haasteellisen työympäristön. He sanovat, että näitä asioita voi olla tapahtunut, mutta sinä olet ymmärtänyt niitä väärin.

That's what they're saying. But the judge is saying both of you agree certain things happened and you disagree on what it equated to. But before we even get to that, I can do legal analysis to make a decision whether or not that question should go in front of the jury or not.

People think that just getting a trial in federal court is easy. This is a hard standard. A lot of these civil trials don't go to trial because it's hard to get over that burden. And so it is 100 percent a victory for Justin Baldoni in the respect that they don't have to battle 13 separate claims. However, they're still going to trial. He didn't throw out everything. The trial is still happening.

extra territorially. Let's lawyer speak. Sean, can you just translate that for me? Not complicated. We're talking about different areas. So even though we're in federal court, what the court is saying is your allegations, the contract, everything you're talking about talks about California law and things that happen in California. However, your pleadings and the fact are talking about things that happened in New Jersey. And so for us to make sure we go forward, we have to make sure that everything you're suggesting is

happens in the state that you pled to. All this stuff happened in New Jersey. California law controls. You don't get to get the benefit of being in one state, but using the laws in a different state. So you got to get out of it.

Yhteiskunnan lainsäädäntöön, jotta se olisi mahdollista. Meidän täytyy ymmärtää, ja kiitän teille kaikki, että kun aloitimme puhumaan Blake Livelyn tilanteesta, te olette saaneet sen huonosti selkeäksi. Voin sanoa, että minulla on voimakkaus. Hän on voimakkaus, hän on voimakkaus, hän on voimakkaus. Se on kuin jos jäseni kuuntelisi sinua, kun hän kirjoittaa opetuksen. Hän kuuntelisi, että hän ei kuuntele minua. Hän ei kuuntele minua. Hän ei kuuntele minua. Hän ei kuuntele minua.

Great. What do you mean now she's going to think that? Honey, I've been thinking that since the beginning. Touche. You know how I feel about judges' rulings. Yeah, I'm not even going to go there. Who gave you the authority to tell me that this is what's going to go down? Who are you? I am Anushka. I'm Anushka. I've never heard of you. I've never heard of you. Have you heard of me? But when you look at it, they really did focus on that. And we have to make sure we understand. And these are the things that are concerning me and Anushka when we're reading social media and reading some legal pundits saying these things.

The judge never came out and said she wasn't sexually harassed or she was. He never said that. And people keep getting confused on that. And the reason I'm bringing this up is I don't want individuals out there who are listening to think that if something bad happened to them at work, they cannot go forward because they have been sexually harassed.

What the court said is in this very limited situation, you are not an employee. You are an independent contractor. The purpose of sexual harassment law are to protect the little person, protect the person who needs a job, protect the person who cannot fight for themselves, protect the person that does not have their own voice. That's why we have sexual harassment laws.

Koska mitä yleensä tapahtuu, ja sinä puhuit siitä, se on voimakkaus. Se on henkilö, joka tarvitsee työtä. Päällikkö tulee ja loppuu kotiin ja sanoo, että voit tai tehdä tätä tai... Ja henkilö tai mies on positiivisessa, että minulla ei ollut vaihtoehtoja, en halunnut menettää työtäni. He sanovat, että ilmaiset työntekijät eivät ole siinä positiivisessa, koska he voivat vain jatkaa.

And file a lawsuit saying that you have violated my contract. And so you have a right to leave. So these federal protections are for individuals who cannot protect themselves. And that's what the court said. They went down these greed factors and they looked at Blake Lively and they're like, yes.

You are in control. You make the most money. And these are all the things you've talked about. You make the money. You control. You complained. They made changes based upon your complaints. You're not a regular employee. You have significant power. And since you're this, your sexual harassment claims, whether they're true or not, cannot go forward in front of this jury. And that's what we talk about with summary judge.

Ei. Minulla olisi työskennellyt työskennellessä.

She wasn't sexually harassed when I did this to her, so I can do this to you. That's not what the court's saying. People need to stop telling this to folks, because what we're going to do is chill women, chill women who feel as though they're being harassed at work and saying, well, they're allowed to do it to Blake, they're allowed to do it to me. That's just wrong. Sorry to get on my soapbox, because I get very concerned when people give incorrect analysis. Apologize.

All of that's still in there because it's all part of the retaliation claim. You hit the nail on the head. When we talk about trials, we have elements. And one of the first elements, as you just mentioned, that she's going to have to prove is that she reasonably believed this happened. And to prove that her reasonably believed it happened and it's not baseless, she's going to have to go through everything that happened and try to show that this created the environment and tell the court, use the court's language, the totality of the circumstances.

Yes, one incident by itself, I might be being sensitive. But this is 14 different incidents, and let me put all these people there. And that's the first part of her claim. And that's what she has to prove. And you and I talked about this. They'll be bringing motions in limine, Justin's team will, to try to exclude stuff that they believe is baseless based upon the court's order and things of that nature. So it's going to be going back and forth trying to limit what the jury hears. But I think you're exactly right. I think it's all coming in. The...

Varsinkin. Ja se on se, mitä he vastaavat, kun he saavat... Muistatko Didi-kysymyksen, kun he taistelivat taas ja taas, mitä järjestelmät tarvitsevat ja järjestelmät tarvitsevat. Se on hyvin iso taistelu, mitä järjestelmät voivat sanoa, kun he taistellaan ja tekevät päätöksiä.