Grammy-winning artist Lizzo is pushing back against a lawsuit filed by her former tour wardrobe stylist, Asha Daniels. The 35-year-old singer’s legal team has filed a motion to dismiss the suit, labeling it as ‘meritless and salacious.’
- RELATED: Billie Eilish Loses Followers on Instagram After Openly Discussing Her Sexuality
- RELATED: Cardi B and Her Husband Offset Unfollow Each Other on Instagram
- RELATED: Adult Film Actress Sophie Anderson Passes Away at 36
- RELATED: Lupita Nyong’o Spotted Spending Time with Joshua Jackson After Split
Daniels, also 35, had previously accused Lizzo of creating a ‘sexualized, racially charged, and illegal work environment.’ This lawsuit followed similar allegations from several of Lizzo’s former dancers about experiencing a hostile work environment, including sexual harassment and fat shaming.
In the new court documents, Lizzo’s attorneys contend that Daniels was a ‘disgruntled’ employee who failed to meet her work responsibilities and abandoned her job during a concert in Paris. They also argue that the case was filed in the wrong jurisdiction, as Daniels is a New York resident working for a Delaware corporation in Europe, with no substantial connection to California.
Ron Zambrano, Asha’s attorney, responded to the motion, accusing Lizzo’s team of attempting to shift blame onto the victims. He emphasized their commitment to seeking justice for the clients in court.
In an interview with ABC News, Daniels opened up about her experiences, alleging physical assault, threats, and discrimination from her manager, Amanda Nomura, while working for Lizzo. She also claimed that Nomura regularly mocked Lizzo and other employees in a racially insensitive manner.
Despite these allegations, Lizzo’s spokesperson has previously denied the claims, stating that Lizzo had never met or spoken to Daniels. However, Daniels maintains that as a business owner, Lizzo bears some responsibility for the workplace environment.
The lawsuit seeks damages for sexual and racial harassment, disability discrimination, unpaid wages, and loss of earnings. The court is yet to rule on the motion to dismiss as the legal battle continues.
