This post contains discussion of sexual harassment.
It sure seems like the Lizzo sexual harassment lawsuit is moving closer to trial.
Brief recap: Last summer, Lizzo was sued by three former dancers for sexual harassment and creating a hostile work environment.
"The stunning nature of how Lizzo and her management team treated their performers seems to go against everything Lizzo stands for publicly," the dancers' lawyer, Ron Zambrano, said in a statement, "while privately, she weight-shames her dancers and demeans them in ways that are not only illegal but absolutely demoralizing.”
The day after the lawsuit became public, Lizzo publicly claimed that the allegations were "false" and "outrageous." “I am not here to be looked at as a victim, but I also know that I am not the villain that people and the media have portrayed me to be these last few days,” she wrote in a statement.
Nonetheless, the backlash was decisive. More former collaborators came forward with allegations of their own, while the lyrics to Lizzo's 2021 song "Rumors" were also re-examined — specifically, the portion where she raps, "Had to cut some hoes loose, yeah / NDA, no loose lips."
Now, Billboard reports that a Los Angeles judge has denied a motion on Lizzo's behalf to throw out the original lawsuit, and has generally cleared the way for the case to continue moving forward.
Billboard's breakdown of the legal decision is thorough, and I will strongly encourage you to read it there. In simplest terms, though: A few parts of the lawsuit were thrown out — specifically, allegations involving a nude photoshoot for Lizzo's reality TV show Watch Out for the Big Grrrls, a dancer who claimed she was fired due to mental health issues, and another dancer who claimed that Lizzo's team interfered with her ability to get future work.
Otherwise, Lizzo — along with her dance captain Shirlene Quigley — is still currently facing the aforementioned allegations of sexual harassment and racial and religious discrimination, despite Lizzo's attempt to dismiss the suit through California's anti-SLAPP statute.
“It is dangerous for the court to weigh in, ham-fisted, into constitutionally protected activity,” Judge Mark H. Epstein wrote in his ruling. “But it is equally dangerous to turn a blind eye to allegations of discrimination or other forms of misconduct merely because they take place in a speech-related environment.”
