Judges in the music industry will likely find Lizzo’s recent court victory against harassment allegations from her dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez to be inspirational ruling. She denied all of the claims made in this suit against her by her team.
Judge Denies Lizzo’s Motion to Dismiss
Last summer, Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez filed an explosive lawsuit alleging Lizzo of fat-shaming, racial and religious discrimination, sexual harassment, false imprisonment and assault. These former dancers claimed they experienced an unsafe work environment when working on her Special tour as well as her reality competition show Watch Out for the Big Grrrls.
Lizzo made her case using California’s anti-SLAPP law, which expedites resolution of meritless suits that threaten free speech. She claimed the accusations were filed out of spiteful intent to silence her and that they must be dismissed quickly to preserve free speech rights for all California residents.
On Friday, a judge denied Lizzo’s motion to dismiss and the case is moving towards trial. While dismissing certain allegations – such as forcing dancers into nude photoshoots and restricting them from taking other jobs while on tour – some allegations such as these were still upheld against her by the judge.
Partially Tossed But Headed to Trial
Lizzo’s Grammy winner status and reputation for body positivity is accused of creating an intimidating working environment during her tour, where Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez claim they were weight-shamed while subject to “sexually demeaning behaviors and preaching about sexuality and Christianity,” per their complaint. They further allege Lizzo pressured them into participating in disturbing sex shows on the road.
She made it clear that she preferred dancers who attended her after parties and those who did attended were given better job security as a result. Furthermore, they allege she made comments regarding a dancer’s weight gain before firing her for recording meetings for health reasons – all allegations she strongly denies and her attorneys for dancers are pleased that some claims against her were dismissed outright.
Motion to Dismiss Was Denied
Three former backup dancers of Lizzo (real name Melissa Jefferson) sued her last year, alleging sexual harassment, discrimination and fat shaming by both she and her touring company. Lizzo categorically denied all allegations made against her.
Lizzo’s attorneys argued the lawsuit should be dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to quickly dismiss meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech. Judge Mark Epstein rejected this motion on Friday and allowed the lawsuit to move forward.
Asha Daniels filed a lawsuit in September against Lizzo, her production company Big Grrl Big Touring Inc., wardrobe manager Amanda Nomura and tour manager Carlina Gugliotta alleging sexual and racial harassment, discrimination and assault – along with allegations of retaliation by them against Daniels. Her attorneys claimed this action lacked merit and salaciously focused on personal matters that do not violate Fair Employment and Housing Act standards established in a 2006 state high court ruling regarding writers room harassment claims by Lizzo’s production company Big Grrl Big Touring Inc et al v Daniels writers room harassment suit.
Lizzo’s Motion to Dismiss Was Granted
Asha Daniels, who designed costumes for Lizzo’s dancers during her Special tour, filed a lawsuit against her in September alleging racial and sexual harassment as well as creating an unsafe working environment – she was later fired shortly after filing suit.
Davis alleges Lizzo fat-shades her, forces her into doing a naked photo shoot, and frequently brings up Davis’ virginity in conversation. Lizzo’s team “invited” the cast members to attend a nude burlesque show in Amsterdam’s red light district where they encouraged touching performers, catching dildos launched from their vaginas, and eating bananas protruding from their bodies.
Her attorneys have filed an anti-SLAPP filing against the lawsuit, asserting that its violation violates her First Amendment rights and seeking dismissal of all the claims brought forward against her. If this request fails, she intends to request a trial date as she already denied all allegations made against her.
- Friday Intraday Trading Sees Nvidia’s stock Market Cap Momentarily Cross $2 Trillion
- Trump’s January 6 Civil Cases Proceed While Criminal Case Is Halted
- Trump Delivers Speech at the Columbia Black Conservative Federation Gala
- Trump Declares Strong Support for IVF Following Alabama Supreme Court Decision
- Schumer in Ukraine Declares US Backing During House Aid Standoff