Lizzo Dancers' Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Awaits Judge While Star Appeals Ruling

A Los Angeles judge is pushing to halt a bombshell sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Lizzo by three of her former dancers, halting all proceedings while the star appeals a recent ruling that allowed the case to move forward.

In a ruling Thursday, Judge Mark H. Epstein ordered the case “stayed” while Lizzo challenges his January ruling, which largely rejected her efforts to dismiss the lawsuit under California's anti-SLAPP law — a special law that makes it easier to quickly end frivolous lawsuits that threaten free speech.

It is unclear how long this process will take, but it will be at least several months before the case continues.

Lizzo (real name Melissa Jefferson) was sued in August by dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, who claim she and Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. created a hostile work environment through a wide range of legal offences, including sexual harassment and religious and racial discrimination.

In one particularly vivid allegation, Lizzo's accusers alleged that she induced them to attend a live sex performance at a venue in Amsterdam's famous Red Light District called Bananenbar and then forced them to engage with the performers, including “eating bananas that they stood out from among the artists. .” After Lizzo herself allegedly led a chant that “challenged” Davis to touch a performer's chest, the lawsuit says, Davis eventually did.

Backed by Hollywood defense attorney Martin D. Singer, Lizzo fired back in October, arguing that Davis, Williams and Rodriguez filed the case seeking “a quick payout with minimal effort.” He said they had “an ax to grind” against the star because they had been reprimanded for “a pattern of gross misconduct and failure to perform their job to the best of their abilities”.

Lizzo's motion to dismiss the case cited the anti-SLAPP statute, which stands for “strategic actions against public participation.” Her lawyers called the harassment suit “a brazen attempt to silence the creative voices of the defendants and weaponize their creative expression against them.”

But in his January ruling, Judge Epstein ruled that the anti-SLAPP statute didn't quite fit all of the lawsuit's allegations. He dropped some allegations – including a particularly charged allegation that Lizzo shamed one of her dancers – but ruled out the rest of the case going forward.

Finding the right balance — between protected speech and illegal discrimination — was “no easy task,” Judge Epstein wrote, but he said he “tried to thread that needle.”

“It is dangerous for the court to delve, with the ham, into constitutionally protected activity,” the judge wrote. “But it is equally dangerous to turn a blind eye to allegations of discrimination or other forms of misconduct simply because they occur in a speech-related setting.”

This is the decision that Lizzo is now appealing. The upcoming appellate battle will aim to answer difficult questions about the anti-SLAPP statute – a provision often used to fight defamation lawsuits, not discrimination lawsuits filed by former employees against an employer their.

In a statement Friday, the plaintiffs' attorney, Ron Zambrano, said: “This case is now pending appeals. They're going to testify, then we're going to cross-examine the record, so the judge stayed the case for now pending those appeals.” An attorney for Lizzo did not immediately return a request for comment.