Months after Lizzo herself escaped a harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed by a former tour wardrobe designer, the star’s lawyers now want the judge to throw out the allegations entirely – calling it an “absurd” case that “makes a mockery of true victims.”
Asha Daniels sued in 2023, shortly after Lizzo had been hit with a separate, similar harassment case from three of her backup dancers. Daniels claimed she had faced a “culture of racism and bullying” while working on costumes during the European leg of Lizzo’s Special Tour.
Though a judge ruled last year that Lizzo couldn’t personally be sued, that decision left her company (Big Grrrl Touring) still facing the case. In motion filed Friday, Lizzo’s attorneys say those claims now must be thrown out, too – arguing that Daniels lacks even “a single witness” to support them.
“Daniels is not a victim of discrimination or harassment, but a disgruntled former employee with an inflated ego, personal vendettas … and an unquenchable thirst for free publicity,” writes attorney Marty Singer, who reps Big Grrrl Touring. “Her frivolous lawsuit makes a mockery of true victims and the laws designed to protect them.”
The music world was shocked in 2023 when Lizzo was sued by three former dancers (Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez) who claimed they had experienced sexual harassment and a hostile work environment while working for the superstar. The accusations included weight-shaming, racial and religious discrimination, and claims that Lizzo forced dancers to attend sex shows.
Weeks later, Daniels filed her own case. Repped by the same lawyers as the dancers, her accusations overlapped with the earlier case – claiming she had witnessed dancers forced to change with “little to no privacy” while white men “would lewdly gawk, sneer, and giggle.” She alleged she had faced sexual harassment, discrimination and had been wrongly terminated.
But in Friday’s motion, attorneys for Lizzo’s Big Grrrl Touring asked the judge to issue a ruling of so-called summary judgment, ending Daniels’ claims against the company. They called her a “brazen liar” who had clearly been fired for cause, not a victim of harassment and discrimination.
“BGBT terminated Daniels because she could not work productively with [her manager], was inexperienced, did not want to continue with the Tour, and failed to comply with safety regulations, Tour protocol and [her manager]’s instructions,” Singer writes. “Despite purportedly being traumatized by alleged harassment and discrimination, she offers no specific information to support her claims or a single witness or document to corroborate her absurd allegations.”
In statement to Billboard, Daniels’ attorney Ron Zambrano said he and his client expect the motion to be denied and look forward to taking the case to trial: “The motion is meritless, and the defense knows it, but their modus operandi is to treat all lawsuits as having no grounds to proceed by repeatedly blaming the victim,” Zambrano said. “It won’t work.”
If Friday’s motion is denied, a jury trial is tentatively scheduled for December.
The separate case filed by the dancers remains pending. The judge in that case ruled last year that some claims should be dismissed, but that many others could move ahead to trial. Lizzo’s attorneys are currently appealing that ruling, warning that the lawsuit could limit her “First Amendment right to perform her music and advocate for body positivity.”