Lizzo has got herself removed from a lawsuit that was filed by an aggrieved former employee. Clothing designer Asha Daniels claims she was the victim of sexual and racial harassment, disability discrimination and other misconduct when working on Lizzo’s tour. However, a judge has ruled that those claims can be made against Lizzo’s company but not the musician personally.
Attorney Marty D Singer, representing Lizzo, told Law360 he’s “very pleased” with that ruling, adding that Lizzo herself should never have been named as a defendant. Writing off the whole lawsuit as a “publicity ploy” on the part of Daniel's attorney Ronald L Zambrano, Singer added, "We're confident that we’ll have the remaining claims dismissed or resolved to our satisfaction".
In his own statement, Zambrano said he now looked forward to proceeding with the case against Lizzo’s company, Big Grrrl Big Touring, adding that he will still look to force the musician to sit for a deposition and answer questions under oath as the case proceeds.
Daniels went legal in September last year, following the lead of three former members of Lizzo's dance team, who filed a similar lawsuit the previous month.
The clothing designer claims that, while working on Lizzo’s 2023 tour, she was forced to hear wardrobe manager Amanda Nomura make “racist and fatphobic comments”, and was unfairly treated after a heavy rack of clothing was rolled over her foot causing considerable pain.
She also claims that people working on the tour were pressured to attend social gatherings where nudity and sexuality were a focal point and, on one occasion, images of male genitalia were inappropriately shared on a group text sent to the tour crew.
Along the way Daniels accused Big Grrrl Big Touring - as well as Lizzo and her tour manager Carlina Gugliotta - of various violations of both Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace, and the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Legal reps for Lizzo and Gugliotta argued that those specific laws only apply to employers, and neither Lizzo nor Gugliotta were Daniels’ employer. Responding, Daniels said that the term ‘employer’ should be interpreted broadly so to include “agents of the actual employer”.
However, after reviewing the relevant case law, Judge Fernando L Aenlle-Rocha sided with Lizzo and Gugliotta. He cited legal precedent that “Congress did not intend to impose individual liability” on agents of an employer when passing Title VII and, thus, “individual defendants cannot be held liable for damages”.
Meanwhile, he said, the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has previously ruled that the Americans With Disabilities Act defines ‘employer’ in the same way as Title VII.
A further claim in Daniels’ lawsuit was dismissed on jurisdiction grounds, because the alleged misconduct happened in Europe where the relevant US laws do not apply. To that end all the claims against Lizzo and Gugliotta have been dismissed, and the case will now proceed with just Big Grrrl Big Touring as a defendant.