On November 22, 2023, the lawsuit against Lizzo by three of her previous backup dancers had its first court hearing. Lawyers for both parties battled it out over allegations centered on whether Lizzo created a hostile work environment while on tour, and if she subjected the three dancers to workplace harassment and discrimination. Let’s get into the details.
Background
On August 1, 2023, three former backup dancers for Lizzo, Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams, and Noelle Rodriguez, filed a complaint against Lizzo, her production company, Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. (BGBT), and dance captain, Shirlene Quigley. The complaint alleges nine causes of action, including hostile work environment, racial and religious harassment, disability discrimination, and failure to prevent or remedy hostile work environment, to name a few.
Plaintiffs alleged that while on tour with Lizzo, they were subjected to a series of inappropriate and discriminatory behaviors and were forced to partake in crude activities at a club in Amsterdam. The lawsuit further alleges the dancers were mistreated by Lizzo and BGBT, that they were subjected to racial and religious discrimination, body-shaming, and an uncomfortable, “sexually charged environment.” Check out the full complaint here.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mark H. Epstein presides over the case. Let’s dig into more details about him.
Judge Mark H. Epstein
The Hon. Mark H. Epstein is a judge for the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. He was appointed to the bench in 2016 by former governor Jerry Brown. He is a registered Democrat, and before joining the bench, he was a partner at the law firm Munger, Tolles, and Olson, where he practiced complex business litigation.
Check out his judge analytics page to get a sense of how Judge Epstein rules on cases he’s presiding over and become familiar with the kinds of cases he typically hears.
In the Lizzo lawsuit, Judge Epstein has declined to issue an immediate ruling on Lizzo’s motion to strike the complaint based on free speech protection. In this motion, filed on October 27th, she was hoping to have the lawsuit against her and BGBT dismissed. The tentative ruling denying the motion was issued on November 3.
Then, on November 22, 2023, Judge Epstein issued another tentative ruling, which included a series of questions that suggest he plans to uphold at least some of the nine causes of actions filed against Lizzo in the August complaint. Let’s break down what the judge had to say and what happened at the hearing.
Judge Epstein’s tentative ruling raised more than several pivotal legal questions, a general summary of which is as follows:
- Does Lizzo claim her celebrity status makes any action she takes a matter of public interest, and to what extent does constitutional protection for expressive conduct cover her actions, including any alleged false imprisonment or assault at social events with her dance crew?
- The court queries whether participation in a voluntary, religion-based event, like a prayer circle, could constitute a condition of employment or form the basis of a Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) claim.
- In relation to a “soft hold,” the court asks if plaintiffs regard it as inherently illegal and whether they can cite any specific job opportunities missed due to the soft hold beyond the instance mentioned by Rodriguez.
- The court queries whether the severity of alleged misconduct’s effects can prompt a summary judgment before any discovery is conducted, and what evidence, besides subjective testimony, could suffice at this proceedings stage to decide in line with due process.
- The court seeks discussion on sexual harassment laws under FEHA, referencing Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, questioning whether a FEHA claim can stand if there is no evidence of gender-based differential treatment, and how plaintiffs might overcome the precedent set by Lyle regarding harassment directed at all employees regardless of gender.
- The weight to be given to statements made after a plaintiff’s termination or resignation is questioned, along with what constitutes the strongest evidence of harassment and discrimination (sexual, racial, religious, disability) and how it could lead to a hostile work environment. Additionally, the importance of whether plaintiffs approached management about the alleged misconduct is considered.
These inquiries seem to reflect the court’s focus on understanding the bounds of free speech, the specific legal frameworks of employment and discrimination law, and the evidentiary requirements for moving forward with legal claims. The court emphasizes that these are not the only issues for consideration, inviting parties to address these and any other relevant matters at the hearing.
Hearing
As reported by Rolling Stone Magazine this past Thursday, during the hearing, Lizzo’s lawyer, Melissa Lerner, argued that the outings in Amsterdam were protected by the First Amendment “because they furthered Lizzo’s ‘explicit and expressed creative purposes,’ meaning her artistic free speech.” Her lawyer argued the plaintiffs were aware that Lizzo believed the dancer’s performances were lagging and that Lizzo took the dancers to the club to foster creativity and inspiration. Lerner argued that the outing was a protected activity for team bonding.
To this, the judge asked, “Is there any limit to this? So basically, anything that happens while they’re on tour that takes place with more than one person could be viewed as teambuilding?” He said, “We’re not dealing with an accounting firm…I just want to know, are there any limits, and if so, what are they.” Lizzo’s attorney responded that there very well could be limits but that “everything enumerated in the complaint should be covered by the singer-songwriter’s right to free expression.”
The judge disagreed. Sources say he “audibly groaned” in the courtroom, firing back that the plaintiff’s allegation is not that they “had to watch it,” the allegation is they “were pressured into participating.”
Lawyer for the plaintiffs, Ronald Zambrano, asked the court, “How is Lizzo forcing Arianna Davis to touch a person’s breast in furtherance of making a show?” He went on to argue that “there has to be a line. There has to be a functional connection between the act and the furtherance of free speech.”
The back and forth between the lawyers and Judge Epstein’s questions indicate this lawsuit centers on how far First Amendment protections protect controversial behavior. Is Lizzo liable for subjecting her dancers to discriminatory and degrading conduct? Or did everything that happened on tour fall under a protected activity in furtherance of her creative process? The judge indicates that not everything can be covered under free speech in the name of creative purpose, especially when certain activities cross a line into discriminatory conduct.
This hearing provided an inside look into the battle between Lizzo and her former backup dancers. Follow the case on Trellis and get notified of updates on every step in the litigation process.
Interested in Staying a Step Head in Your Legal Practice?
Check out Trellis! Trellis is an AI-powered state court research and data analytics platform created by litigators for litigators. We make the law accessible to everyone with the largest searchable state trial court records database. Save time and stay current with ongoing litigation—access thousands of searchable court documents. Make drafting easier by reading through motions submitted to the court. Dive into judge and law firm analytics and become educated with your presiding judge and opponent to make actionable decisions in court. Contact us today for a demo.
Sources: