Lizzo’s sexual harassment case against her former backup dancers is proceeding despite the singer’s motion to have it thrown out.
According to Billboard, the singer argued that the case should be tossed under California’s anti-SLAPP law, which ends baseless lawsuits threatening free speech.
Lizzo’s lawyers insisted that her accusers sued so they could “silence” her.
However, Judge Mark H. Epstein released a 34-page decision ruling that the anti-SLAPP statute didn’t entirely fit the allegations.
He tossed out several claims but insisted that the rest of the case could move ahead.
“It is dangerous for the court to weigh in, ham-fisted, into constitutionally protected activity. But it is equally dangerous to turn a blind eye to allegations of discrimination or other forms of misconduct merely because they take place in a speech-related environment.”
What Is Lizzo Accused Of?
Former dancers Noelle Rodriguez, Crystal Williams, and Arianna Davis sued Lizzo and the Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. for fostering a hostile work environment through weight-shaming, sexual harassment, and racial and religious discrimination.
In one allegation, the dancers accused Lizzo of pushing her to go to a live sex show in Amsterdam’s Red Light District.
The singer allegedly pushed the dancers to eat “bananas protruding from the performers’ vaginas.”
Davis v. Big Grrrl Big Touring by Billboard
The singer fired back, arguing that the dancers had “an axe to grind” against her because she had reprimanded them over “a pattern of gross misconduct and failure to perform their job up to par.”
“Plaintiffs embarked on a press tour, vilifying defendants and pushing their fabricated sob story in the courts and in the media. That ends today. Instead of taking any accountability for their own actions, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants out of spite and in pursuit of media attention, public sympathy and a quick payday with minimal effort.”
18 members of Lizzo’s touring company gave sworn statements disputing the lawsuit’s accusations.
Lizzo’s lawyers also argued that the lawsuit was “a brazen attempt to silence defendants’ creative voices and weaponize their creative expression against them.”
However, Judge Epstein rejected the argument as California law “wisely disfavors chilling such conduct.”
“The fact that the alleged incidents take place in the entertainment or speech world is no shield of invulnerability or license to ignore law enacted for the protection of California’s citizens.”
The dancers’ lawyer, Ron Zambrano, released a statement shortly afterward.
“We’re very pleased with the judge’s ruling, and we absolutely consider it a victory on balance. He did dismiss a few allegations, including the meeting where Arianna was fat shamed, the nude photo shoot, and dancers being forced to be on ‘hold’ while not on tour. However, all the other claims remain, including sexual, religious and racial discrimination, sexual harassment, the demeaning visits to the Bananenbar in Amsterdam and Crazy Horse in Paris, false imprisonment, and assault. The ruling also rightfully signals that Lizzo – or any celebrity – is not insulated from this sort of reprehensible conduct merely because she is famous. We now look forward to conducting discovery and preparing the case for trial.”
Lizzo’s spokesman, Stefan Friedman, also released a statement.
“We are pleased that Judge Epstein wisely threw out all or part of four of the plaintiffs’ causes of action. Lizzo is grateful to the judge for seeing through much of the noise and recognizing who she is – a strong woman who exists to lift others up and spread positivity. We plan to appeal all elements that the judge chose to keep in the lawsuit and are confident we will prevail.”
