Lizzo Says Dancers’ Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Is Attack On Free Speech Rights In New Appeal

Lizzo is launching an appeal aimed at ending a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by her former backup dancers, calling it an “attack” on her “First Amendment right to perform her music and advocate for body positivity.”

The blockbuster case, filed in 2023, accuses the star (Melissa Jefferson) of sexual harassment and discrimination. Though a judge dismissed some claims last year – including a headline-grabbing claim about fat-shaming – he allowed the overall lawsuit to move ahead toward a jury trial.

In an opening brief filed last month, her attorneys urged an appeals court overturn that ruling and toss out the entire case. They say Lizzo’s behavior toward the dancers was clearly part of her artistic approach — and thus shielded by constitutional protections for free speech.

“Plaintiffs’ suit [is] an attack on Lizzo’s First Amendment right to perform her music and advocate for body positivity,” writes Lizzo’s attorneys, who include prominent Hollywood defense attorney Marty Singer. “Rather than accept personal accountability, plaintiffs filed this shotgun action, taking aim at nearly every facet of Lizzo’s creative process.”

One key claim in the case against Lizzo is that she pushed the dancers to attend a sex show in Amsterdam’s Red Light District at a venue called Bananenbar, then pressured them to touch and engage with nude performers. But her lawyers say that incident – which they stress was entirely optional — was directly tied to the creation of her art and thus cannot form the basis of legal liablity.

“There’s no disagreement that Lizzo held these outings as a necessary part of her creative process,” Singer writes. “Early social gatherings during international tours (like the Bananenbar) are critical to teambuilding and fostering cohesion.”

The case against Lizzo, filed by Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, accused the singer and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. of creating a hostile work environment via sexual harassment, religious and racial discrimination. It also accused her of disability discrimination based on weight-shaming – a loaded allegation against a star who had made body positivity a key part of her personal brand.

Lizzo quickly denied any wrongdoing, calling the claims “false” and “sensationalized” and vowing to fight back: “I am very open with my sexuality and expressing myself but I cannot accept or allow people to use that openness to make me out to be something I am not.”

The star’s legal defense centered on California’s so-called anti-SLAPP law — a special statute that makes it easier to quickly end lawsuits that threaten free speech. In seeking to dismiss the case under that law, Lizzo’s lawyers argued the dancers wanted to “silence” Lizzo and “weaponize” her creative expression against her.

In early 2024, Judge Mark H. Epstein partly endorsed that argument and tossed out several allegations, including the discrimination claims about fat-shaming. But he allowed numerous accusations to move ahead toward a potential trial, including those over the Amsterdam sex show.

“It is dangerous for the court to weigh in, ham-fisted, 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 merely because they take place in a speech-related environment.”

In appealing that ruling, Lizzo’s lawyers argue that it’s dangerous for judges to wade into an artist’s creative process. They cite earlier court rulings that say such work includes discussion of “many bizarre and potentially offensive ideas” and can be “unpredictable.”

“Judges must not dissect the creative process to determine what was necessary to achieve the final product and what was not,” Lizzo’s lawyers write. “By rejecting the artist’s proven experience for what is necessary to, and best enhances, her own art, the trial court stepped far outside its role.”

A rep for lawyers for Davis, Williams and Rodriguez did not immediately return a request for comment. They will file their own appellate brief later this month aimed at rebutting Lizzo’s arguments. The two sides will then argue the case before the court at some point in the coming months.

If the appeals court sides with Lizzo, the case will be dismissed. If the court sides with Davis, Williams and Rodriguez, the case will return to Epstein’s court and move toward an eventual jury trial.