Lizzo Case is Chance to Apply ‘Friends’ Precedent, Judge Says

A harassment lawsuit against musician Lizzo will consider a 2006 state high court precedent set in a “Friends” writers room harassment lawsuit, the California judge overseeing the case said Wednesday.

Workplace harassment must be directed at members of a certain gender to meet Fair Employment and Housing Act standards the ruling in Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television suggested, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mark H. Epstein said Wednesday.

The California Supreme Court found in Lyle that sexually coarse and vulgar language in a workplace is not outlawed by FEHA unless a person is the target of that language based on their gender, creating a hostile environment. Epstein asked lawyers to submit a list of cases dealing with the decision for his consideration.

“I’m pushing it to the extreme, but if you have workplace harassment which was equally directed to everybody, irrespective of their gender, it would not be covered by FEHA because there’s no different conduct for one sex as opposed to another sex?” Epstein said. “Maybe that’s not a fair reading of Lyle.”

Dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams, and Noelle Rodriguez alleged in their complaint that Lizzo and her touring company engaged in sexual harassment. They allegedly requested that the dancers participate in nude photoshoots and interact with naked dance performers during the creation of the singer’s reality TV show and world tour. Assistant choreographer Shirlene Quigley also sexually harassed dancers with simulated oral sex with a banana and comments about masturbation and virginity, the dancers say.

The fact that every dancer is a women doesn’t proscribe a FEHA harassment claim, said West Coast Employment Lawyers attorney Ron Zambrano, who represents the dancers. The Lyle plaintiff also said the vulgar language in the writers room did not specifically target her, Zambrano said.

“Had Ms. Quigley been a man talking about masturbation and fellatio, I don’t think we’d be having this conversation,” Zambrano said, adding that it is undisputed that a woman can sexually harass another woman.

Free Speech Argument

Lizzo and her touring company have asked for the case to be dismissed on the basis that the allegations are protected under free speech, which they exercised during the creation of their reality TV series “Watch Out For The Big Grrrls” and international stadium tour, their lawyers argued.

The public interest lies in Lizzo’s creation of art, an expressive process that encapsulates her performances, the messaging in her music, the preparation for the live performances, and the preparation for reality TV program, Lavely & Singer PC attorney Melissa Lerner said Wednesday in the singer’s defense. Team-building activities such as outings to bars and conversations while traveling aid and assist the advancement of expressive work, she said.

“There may be limits, but they aren’t part of this complaint,” Lerner said.

In addition to their sexual harassment claims, the dancers said Quigley attempted to convert cast members to Christianity, which Quigley denied in court filings. Touring company employees also scolded dancers without explaining why, the complaint said. “Only the dance cast—comprised of full-figured women of color—were ever spoken to in this manner, giving plaintiffs the impression that these comments were charged with racial and fat-phobic animus,” the dancers said.

The suit was filed because the dancers “have an axe to grind,” Lizzo’s lawyers said in their motion to dismiss, which was accompanied by supporting declarations from twenty members of the touring company, including the singer herself. “

Dancers weren’t forced to attend the nude dance performance and nude photoshoot, members said in their declarations. But dancers still felt peer-pressured to attend and participate in the events, the plaintiffs said in court filings.

“By not attending, dancers, like myself, risked the possibility of losing out on being selected for these additional paid shows—and therefore additional income—but also risked being ostracized from the group, and having their dedication to the team and their job questioned,” Rodriguez said in a Nov. 8 declaration.

West Coast Employment Lawyers APLC is representing the dancers. Lavely & Singer PC is representing Lizzo and Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. The Macellaro Firm PC is representing Shirlene Quigley.

The case is Arianna Davis v. Big Grrrl Big Touring, Cal. Super. Ct., No. 23SMCV03553, 11/22/23