Lizzo’s request to have a sexual harassment lawsuit against her dismissed has been denied.
Backup dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez have made a series of allegations against the 35-year-old superstar, her production company, Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc.; and dance team captain Shirlene Quigley, including being pressured by Lizzo to touch nude performers while at a club in Amsterdam and forced to undergo weight shaming.
Lizzo had tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, but on Friday a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that the case would go forward.
“We are very pleased with the judge’s ruling and absolutely consider it a victory on balance,” Davis, Williams and Rodriguez’s attorney, Ron Zambrano, told People in a statement.
Lizzo’s request to have a sexual harassment lawsuit against her dismissed has been denied; seen in November 2023; pictured in September 2023
He explained that Judge Mark H. Epstein “dismissed a few allegations,” including Davis being fat-shamed, a nude photo shoot and dancers being forced to be “on hold” while not on tour.
Yet he noted: ‘All other claims remain, including sexual, religious and racial discrimination, sexual harassment, the humiliating visits to the Banana Bar in Amsterdam and Crazy Horse in Paris, false imprisonment and assault. The ruling also rightly indicates that Lizzo – or any celebrity – is not exempt from this kind of reprehensible behavior just because she is famous. We now look forward to conducting discovery and preparing the case for trial.”
Stefan Friedman, a spokesperson for Lizzo, told Entertainment Tonight: “We are pleased that Judge Epstein wisely dismissed all or part of the plaintiffs’ four lawsuits. Lizzo is grateful the judge saw through much of the noise and saw who she is: a strong woman who exists to uplift others and spread positivity. We plan to appeal all elements the judge retained in the lawsuit and are confident we will prevail.”
In October, Lizzo’s legal team labeled the lawsuit filed by her former dancers as a “fabricated sob story” launched by “opportunists.”
“Plaintiffs embarked on a press tour, defaming defendants and airing their fabricated sob story in the courts and media. That ends today,” attorney Martin D. Singer wrote in documents from Billboard.
He continued, “Rather than take any responsibility for their own actions, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Defendants out of spite and for the purpose of media attention, public sympathy, and a quick payday with minimal effort.”
The attorneys also included affidavits from 18 members of Lizzo’s touring troupe, who disputed many of the lawsuit’s specific allegations, including allegations that she physically disgraced some of her dancers.
One of the dancers recalled, “I have never seen anyone, including the accusers, shamed for weight or body.”
Background dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez have made a series of allegations against the superstar, her production company, Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc.; and dance team captain Shirlene Quigley, including being pressured by Lizzo to touch nude performers while at a club in Amsterdam and forced to undergo weight shaming. (seen in July 2023)
Lizzo had tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, but on Friday a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled that the case would go forward; pictured last year
The person then stated that the Good As Hell singer had maintained a professional demeanor when dealing with other dancers.
“Lizzo inspired us all to celebrate and love ourselves and our bodies as we are,” they wrote.
The Juice singer’s team wants the case immediately dismissed under California’s so-called anti-SLAPP statute — which makes it easier to quickly end meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech and are becoming more common used in defamation cases – due to the creative nature of Lizzo’s work.
Her attorneys wrote, “The complaint — and plaintiffs’ carefully choreographed media blitz surrounding its filing — is a brazen attempt to silence defendants’ creative voices and weaponize their creative expression against them.”
Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Crystal Williams, Noelle Rodriguez and Arianna Davis, denied the motion to dismiss.
Neama Rahmani of West Coast Employment Lawyers told Billboard in a statement: “Even a first-year law student can see that ‘free speech’ does not include the illegal sexual harassment and discrimination based on race, religion and disability of Lizzo and her team.”
“We are very pleased with the judge’s ruling and absolutely consider it a victory on balance,” Davis, Williams and Rodriguez’s attorney, Ron Zambrano, told People in a statement; seen in 2023
She added: ‘Filming a reality TV show does not give Lizzo the right to break the law.’
“The defense prosecutors are either defendants accused of wrongdoing or people on Lizzo’s payroll, and their statements cannot be considered by the judge,” she said.
Rahmani concluded by saying that West Coast Employment Lawyers had also been contacted by several individuals who were allegedly assaulted by the singer.
“Our clients have dozens of independent witnesses supporting their stories, and we continue to receive inquiries from other former Lizzo employees who want to be new plaintiffs,” she said.