Lizzo’s legal team has responded to a s**ual harassment lawsuit filed by three former dancers, dismissing the allegations as a “fabricated sob story” driven by opportunism and a desire for quick money.
In a motion to dismiss the case filed in Los Angeles court, Lizzo’s attorneys argued that the lawsuit, which includes claims of s**ual harassment, discrimination, and fat-shaming, was brought by individuals with a personal vendetta and a history of misconduct and failure to perform their job adequately.
The motion stated, “Plaintiffs embarked on a press tour, vilifying defendants and pushing their fabricated sob story in the courts and in the media.
That ends today.”
Lizzo’s attorney, Martin D. Singer, accused the plaintiffs of seeking media attention, public sympathy, and financial gain without taking responsibility for their own actions.
To support their motion, Lizzo’s legal team submitted sworn statements from 18 members of her touring company who contradicted many of the specific factual allegations made in the lawsuit.
Some dancers even disputed the claim that Lizzo fat-shamed her performers, emphasizing that she inspired body positivity and self-love among them.
Lizzo’s lawyers argued that the case should be immediately dismissed under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which aims to quickly end meritless lawsuits that infringe on free speech.
While it is uncommon for an anti-SLAPP motion to be used in a s**ual harassment lawsuit, Lizzo’s legal team argued that creative expression was at stake in this case.
The lawsuit, filed in August by dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams, and Noelle Rodriguez, accuses Lizzo and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. of creating a hostile work environment through various forms of misconduct, including s**ual harassment, religious and racial discrimination.
The alleged weight-shaming incidents are also claimed to be a form of disability discrimination.
One allegation in the lawsuit describes how Lizzo supposedly pressured the dancers to attend a live s** show in Amsterdam and engage with performers in explicit acts.
However, Lizzo’s tour manager, Molly Gordon, challenged this version of events, stating that she did not witness any discomfort or coercion from Davis during the outing.
Another key allegation involves Shirlene Quigley, the captain of Lizzo’s dance team, who is accused of imposing her religious beliefs on the plaintiffs and engaging in inappropriate behavior.
Several members of the touring company disputed these claims, asserting that Quigley never treated anyone differently based on their religious beliefs and that the allegations did not align with her character.
The lawsuit also mentions instances of Lizzo’s alleged outbursts and mistreatment of dancers.
However, Asia Banks, a dancer on the tour, contradicted these claims, stating that Lizzo always made her feel secure and confident in her body.
Statements from other tour members pointed to behavioral and performance issues with the accusers, including alleged lax performances, hygiene concerns, and frequent tardiness.
These statements aimed to undermine the credibility of the plaintiffs.
In response to Lizzo’s motion, attorneys for Davis, Williams, and Rodriguez criticized the anti-SLAPP argument and the statements from Lizzo’s other dancers, asserting that they do not excuse the alleged s**ual harassment and discrimination.
They emphasized that independent witnesses support their clients’ stories and that additional former Lizzo employees have expressed interest in joining the lawsuit.
As the case continues, the court will ultimately determine the validity of the allegations and the outcome of the lawsuit.
You can read the entire motion filed by Lizzo’s lawyers here: [link to the motion]
