[ad_1]
By Deirdre Durkan-simonds and Sam Joseph Semon for Dailymail.com
18:08 February 3, 2024, updated 19:52 February 3, 2024
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 Lizzo pressuring them to touch naked performers while at a club in Amsterdam and forcing them to endure weight shaming.
Lizzo had tried to have the lawsuit dismissed on Friday, but a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge ruled the case will move forward.
“We are very pleased with the judge’s ruling and absolutely consider it a collective victory,” Davis, Williams and Rodriguez’s attorney, Ron Zambrano, told People in a statement.
He explained that Judge Mark H. Epstein “dismissed some allegations,” including Davis’ fat shaming, a nude photo shoot, and dancers being forced to be on “standby” while not on tour.
Still, he noted: ‘All other allegations persist, including sexual, religious and racial discrimination, sexual harassment, degrading visits to the Bananenbar in Amsterdam and the Crazy Horse in Paris, false imprisonment and assault. The ruling also rightly points out that Lizzo – or any celebrity – is not safe from this type of reprehensible conduct simply because she is famous. We now look forward to conducting testing and preparing the case for trial.
Lizzo spokesperson Stefan Friedman told Entertainment Tonight: “We are pleased that Judge Epstein wisely dismissed 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 seeing who she is: a strong woman who exists to uplift others and spread positivity. “We plan to appeal all elements that the judge decided to maintain in the lawsuit and we are confident that we will prevail.”
In October, Lizzo’s legal team called the lawsuit filed by her former dancers a “sadly fabricated story” launched by “opportunists.”
‘The plaintiffs embarked on a press tour, vilifying the defendants and promoting their fabricated sob story in court and in the media. That ends today,” attorney Martin D. Singer wrote in filings. Billboard.
He continued: “Rather than take any responsibility for their own actions, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants out of spite and seeking media attention, public sympathy, and a quick payday with minimal effort. “.
The lawyers also included affidavits from 18 members of Lizzo’s touring group that dispute many of the lawsuit’s specific allegations, including allegations that she had body-shamed some of her dancers.
One of the dancers recalled: “I never saw anyone, including the plaintiffs, embarrassed by their weight or their body.”
The individual then claimed that the Good As Hell singer had maintained a professional attitude when interacting with other dancers.
“Lizzo inspired us all to celebrate and love ourselves and our bodies just as we are,” they wrote.
The Juice singer’s team wants the case to be dismissed immediately under California’s so-called anti-SLAPP statute, which makes it easier to quickly end meritless lawsuits that threaten free speech and are more typically used in defamation cases, because to Lizzo’s creative nature. work.
Their lawyers wrote: “The lawsuit (and the plaintiffs’ carefully choreographed media blitz surrounding its filing) is a blatant attempt to silence defendants’ creative voices and weaponize their creative expression against them.”
Attorneys for the accusers, Crystal Williams, Noelle Rodriguez and Arianna Davis, criticized 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 ‘freedom of speech’ does not cover unlawful sexual harassment and racial, religious and disability discrimination. “Lizzo and her team.”
He added: “Filming a reality show doesn’t give Lizzo the right to break the law.”
“Defense deponents are accused of wrongdoing or people who are on Lizzo’s payroll, and their statements cannot be considered by the judge,” he said.
Rahmani concluded by stating that West Coast employment lawyers had also been contacted by several people who had allegedly been mistreated 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,” he said.