Lizzo Dancer Lawsuit Has Heated Court Hearing

The lawsuit alleging Lizzo harassed a trio of backup dancers had its first major court hearing Wednesday, with lawyers on both sides sparring over allegations the singer created a hostile work environment on tour.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark H. Epstein declined to issue an immediate ruling on Lizzo’s motion to spike the complaint due to her right to free speech, but his barrage of questions suggested he’ll uphold at least some of the nine causes of action filed in August. The judge spent considerable time on the allegation from plaintiffs Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams, and Noelle Rodriguez that Lizzo pressured them to attend after-hours gatherings at venues with nude performers.

According to the complaint, Lizzo invited her dancers to a club in Amsterdam while on tour last February and allegedly urged them to “take turns touching the nude performers, catching dildos launched from the performers’ vaginas, and eating bananas protruding from the performers’ vaginas.” Davis alleges Lizzo singled her out and coerced her into touching a performer’s breast, leaving her “mortified.” A month later, Lizzo invited the dancers to a show at the Crazy Horse cabaret in Paris, where the performers also were nude, the filing states.

Lizzo’s lawyer Melissa Lerner argued Wednesday that the outings were protected by the First Amendment because they furthered Lizzo’s “explicit and expressed creative purposes,” meaning her artistic free speech. Lerner said the plaintiffs were well aware that “Lizzo was under the impression that the performance of the dancers was lagging, that they needed some new injection of creativity and some new inspiration,” and that’s why Lizzo organized the Crazy Horse outing.

“What about Amsterdam?” Judge Epstein asked. Lerner replied that all the outings should be considered protected activity because they helped “enable bonding” and “inspire cohesion and confidence” among the performers.

“Is there any limit to this? So, basically, anything that happens while they’re on tour that takes place with more than one person could be viewed as team-building?” the judge asked. “We’re dealing with a concert tour. We’re not dealing with an accounting firm…(but) I just want to know, are there any limits, and if so, what are they?”

Lizzo’s lawyer said there may be limits, but everything enumerated in the complaint should be covered by the singer-songwriter’s right to free expression. “This is a group of people who are living, working and traveling together for months on end,” she argued. “These outings are to go watch performers on stage. That is actually the job that plaintiffs are engaged in.”

At this point, Judge Epstein audibly groaned. “The allegation is not, ‘We had to watch it.’ The allegation is, ‘We were pressured into participating.’ Right? Isn’t that the allegation?” the judge asked.

“How is Lizzo forcing Arianna Davis to touch a person’s breast in furtherance of (Lizzo) making a show?” Ronald Zambrano, the lawyer representing the suing dancers, asked the court. “There has to be a line. There has to be a functional connection between the act and the furtherance of free speech.”

The lawsuit filed by the three dancers names Lizzo’s production company, Big Grrrl Big Touring, and her dance captain, Shirlene Quigley, as co-defendants. The dancers allege Quigley was allowed to push her Christian religious beliefs on the dancers, openly preach her opposition to pre-marital sex and show off a “party trick” in which she simulated oral sex on a banana.

According to the complaint, Lizzo and Big Grrrl knew Davis suffered from anxiety but still subjected her to an “excruciating re-audition” to keep her job in April 2023 after Lizzo allegedly accused dance cast members of unprofessionalism and drinking alcohol before shows. “What was supposed to be an eight-hour rehearsal was extended to almost twelve hours,” the filing reads. “(Davis) was afraid that if she left the stage at any point during the audition she would be fired. Ms. Davis was pressed on as long as she could until she eventually lost control of her bladder.”

The complaint says Williams was terminated from the tour first, in April 2023, shortly after she raised her hand to “rebut” Lizzo’s alleged accusation of drinking on the job. A day later, the dancers were called into a meeting that Davis says she recorded because she has a medical condition that causes her to feel disoriented in stressful situations. According to the complaint, Davis and the other dancers were called to yet another meeting in early May where security confiscated their phones. Lizzo allegedly fired Davis on the spot after Davis admitted she had recorded the prior meeting. When Rodriguez said she felt disrespected by the tour’s handling of the meeting, Lizzo “aggressively approached Ms. Rodriquez, cracking her knuckles, balling her fists,” the complaint alleges.

In a sworn statement to the court last month, Lizzo called the allegations in the complaint “absurd” and “ludicrous.” In addition to the claim of a hostile work environment, the plaintiffs allege they were subjected to religious and racial harassment. Davis makes further claims of disability discrimination and false imprisonment, and Rodriguez alleges assault.  

“I am a proud Black woman. I love my plus-size body and I celebrate every inch of it as sexy and beautiful. I believe in hard work, striving for perfection and constantly pushing myself to do better,” Lizzo, whose legal name is Melissa Jefferson, wrote in her statement.

“I have never personally engaged in nor condoned others engaging in sexual harassment, religious harassment, racial discrimination or disability discrimination. I have never fat shamed or body shamed anyone or allowed someone else to do so on my watch,” she said. “That goes against everything I stand for, and I would never inflict on anyone else the kind of offensive and hurtful behavior that I had to endure.”

Judge Epstein said Wednesday that he was giving both sides five additional court days to submit more case law for his review before he renders a decision on the pending motion to strike.

The lawsuit alleging Lizzo harassed a trio of backup dancers had its first major court hearing Wednesday, with lawyers on both sides sparring over allegations the singer created a hostile work environment on tour.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark H. Epstein declined to issue an immediate ruling on Lizzo’s motion to spike the complaint due to her right to free speech, but his barrage of questions suggested he’ll uphold at least some of the nine causes of action filed in August. The judge spent considerable time on the allegation from plaintiffs Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams, and Noelle Rodriguez that Lizzo pressured them to attend after-hours gatherings at venues with nude performers.

According to the complaint, Lizzo invited her dancers to a club in Amsterdam while on tour last February and allegedly urged them to “take turns touching the nude performers, catching dildos launched from the performers’ vaginas, and eating bananas protruding from the performers’ vaginas.” Davis alleges Lizzo singled her out and coerced her into touching a performer’s breast, leaving her “mortified.” A month later, Lizzo invited the dancers to a show at the Crazy Horse cabaret in Paris, where the performers also were nude, the filing states.

Lizzo’s lawyer Melissa Lerner argued Wednesday that the outings were protected by the First Amendment because they furthered Lizzo’s “explicit and expressed creative purposes,” meaning her artistic free speech. Lerner said the plaintiffs were well aware that “Lizzo was under the impression that the performance of the dancers was lagging, that they needed some new injection of creativity and some new inspiration,” and that’s why Lizzo organized the Crazy Horse outing.

“What about Amsterdam?” Judge Epstein asked. Lerner replied that all the outings should be considered protected activity because they helped “enable bonding” and “inspire cohesion and confidence” among the performers.

“Is there any limit to this? So, basically, anything that happens while they’re on tour that takes place with more than one person could be viewed as team-building?” the judge asked. “We’re dealing with a concert tour. We’re not dealing with an accounting firm…(but) I just want to know, are there any limits, and if so, what are they?”

Lizzo’s lawyer said there may be limits, but everything enumerated in the complaint should be covered by the singer-songwriter’s right to free expression. “This is a group of people who are living, working and traveling together for months on end,” she argued. “These outings are to go watch performers on stage. That is actually the job that plaintiffs are engaged in.”

At this point, Judge Epstein audibly groaned. “The allegation is not, ‘We had to watch it.’ The allegation is, ‘We were pressured into participating.’ Right? Isn’t that the allegation?” the judge asked.

“How is Lizzo forcing Arianna Davis to touch a person’s breast in furtherance of (Lizzo) making a show?” Ronald Zambrano, the lawyer representing the suing dancers, asked the court. “There has to be a line. There has to be a functional connection between the act and the furtherance of free speech.”

The lawsuit filed by the three dancers names Lizzo’s production company, Big Grrrl Big Touring, and her dance captain, Shirlene Quigley, as co-defendants. The dancers allege Quigley was allowed to push her Christian religious beliefs on the dancers, openly preach her opposition to pre-marital sex and show off a “party trick” in which she simulated oral sex on a banana.

According to the complaint, Lizzo and Big Grrrl knew Davis suffered from anxiety but still subjected her to an “excruciating re-audition” to keep her job in April 2023 after Lizzo allegedly accused dance cast members of unprofessionalism and drinking alcohol before shows. “What was supposed to be an eight-hour rehearsal was extended to almost twelve hours,” the filing reads. “(Davis) was afraid that if she left the stage at any point during the audition she would be fired. Ms. Davis was pressed on as long as she could until she eventually lost control of her bladder.”

The complaint says Williams was terminated from the tour first, in April 2023, shortly after she raised her hand to “rebut” Lizzo’s alleged accusation of drinking on the job. A day later, the dancers were called into a meeting that Davis says she recorded because she has a medical condition that causes her to feel disoriented in stressful situations. According to the complaint, Davis and the other dancers were called to yet another meeting in early May where security confiscated their phones. Lizzo allegedly fired Davis on the spot after Davis admitted she had recorded the prior meeting. When Rodriguez said she felt disrespected by the tour’s handling of the meeting, Lizzo “aggressively approached Ms. Rodriquez, cracking her knuckles, balling her fists,” the complaint alleges.

In a sworn statement to the court last month, Lizzo called the allegations in the complaint “absurd” and “ludicrous.” In addition to the claim of a hostile work environment, the plaintiffs allege they were subjected to religious and racial harassment. Davis makes further claims of disability discrimination and false imprisonment, and Rodriguez alleges assault.  

“I am a proud Black woman. I love my plus-size body and I celebrate every inch of it as sexy and beautiful. I believe in hard work, striving for perfection and constantly pushing myself to do better,” Lizzo, whose legal name is Melissa Jefferson, wrote in her statement.

“I have never personally engaged in nor condoned others engaging in sexual harassment, religious harassment, racial discrimination or disability discrimination. I have never fat shamed or body shamed anyone or allowed someone else to do so on my watch,” she said. “That goes against everything I stand for, and I would never inflict on anyone else the kind of offensive and hurtful behavior that I had to endure.”

Judge Epstein said Wednesday that he was giving both sides five additional court days to submit more case law for his review before he renders a decision on the pending motion to strike.