What Is the Lizzo Lawsuit?
The Lizzo lawsuit is a single employment case in which three former dancers, Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, sued singer Melissa Jefferson, known as Lizzo, her touring company Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc. and dance captain Shirlene Quigley. The dancers filed it in Los Angeles Superior Court on August 1, 2023. They say they were harassed and discriminated against while working on Lizzo's tour.
The dancers met Lizzo as contestants on her reality series Watch Out for the Big Grrrls, a show in which contestants competed for places on her dance team, according to the court's description of the complaint. The case is not a class action, and no group of other claimants can join it. Lizzo is not accused of a crime, and every allegation remains unproven in court.
Searchers sometimes mix this case up with other Lizzo legal matters. Wardrobe stylist Asha Daniels filed a separate suit in 2023, covered further down this page, and it is not part of the dancers' case.
“Plaintiffs Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams, and Noelle Rodriguez (collectively "plaintiffs") filed this employment discrimination action against defendants Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc. ("BGBT"), Melissa Jefferson ("Lizzo"), and Shirlene Quigley ("Quigley" and collectively "defendants"). According to the operative complaint, plaintiffs are professional dancers who worked with Lizzo.”
Source: Source: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, West District, Davis et al. v. Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc. et al., Case No. 23SMCV03553, Order on Defendants' Special Motion to Strike (filed January 31, 2024), background section. Quoted from the order's published PDF, which was scanned, so the text is reproduced as printed.
Why Was the Lizzo Lawsuit Filed?
The Lizzo lawsuit was filed because the three dancers say they were subjected to sexual, religious and racial harassment, pressured into unwelcome situations and mistreated while working on Lizzo's tour between 2021 and 2023. The complaint says the conduct came from Lizzo, from dance captain Shirlene Quigley and from members of the touring management team.
Among the central allegations, the dancers say Lizzo pressured Davis to touch a performer at a Red Light District club in Amsterdam in February 2023, and that Quigley pushed her religious views on the dance cast and made sexual comments. The dancers also say a re-audition process was punishing and that Black dancers were singled out as unprofessional. The complaint additionally says the dancers were offered only part of their pay during breaks from touring.
Lizzo called the claims false and sensationalized, and her lawyers told the court the dancers filed to obtain a quick payday. Whether the allegations are true is for a judge or jury to decide, and the case has not reached trial.
What Harms Does the Lizzo Lawsuit Allege?
The Lizzo lawsuit includes six distinct categories of alleged harm, grouped by the kind of legal claim the dancers pleaded. The complaint lists nine causes of action, and these six cover the conduct those claims describe. Lizzo and her touring company deny every category, and the court has not decided any of them on the merits. One of the six, the weight-based disability claim, was dismissed in January 2024.
Sexual Harassment
Under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that is severe or pervasive enough to create an offensive or intimidating workplace.
The dancers say sexual harassment came from two sources. They allege Lizzo pressured Davis to touch a performer at a club in Amsterdam, and they allege Quigley made sexual comments and shared details of a dancer's private life. The court's order treated the club outings as part of this claim and let that part of the case continue. The first two causes of action, harassment and failure to prevent it, also originally covered a nude photoshoot for the reality show, and that portion was struck.
Religious Discrimination
Religious discrimination is unfavorable treatment of a worker, or pressure placed on a worker, because of religious belief or the lack of one.
The complaint accuses Quigley of proselytizing to members of the dance cast and leading prayer circles before rehearsals and performances. The dancers say this pressured people who did not share her views. The judge described the theory as closer to reverse discrimination, since the dancers say they were treated worse for not sharing Quigley's beliefs, and allowed the third and fourth causes of action to proceed.
Racial Discrimination
Racial discrimination in employment means treating workers differently because of their race, including through stereotyped statements.
The dancers say tour management described the Black members of the dance team as lazy, unprofessional and having bad attitudes, and that other dancers were not spoken to the same way. They say the comments were tied to race. The fifth cause of action rests on those statements, and the court denied the motion to strike it.
Weight-Based Disability Discrimination
Disability discrimination is unfavorable treatment of a worker because of a recognized physical or mental condition, or because an employer regards the worker as having one.
Davis alleged Lizzo and choreographer Tanisha Scott questioned her commitment because of weight gain, and that a re-audition left her anxious about her job. The trial court struck the sixth cause of action, the disability claim, in January 2024. The dancers later dropped their own appeal of that dismissal, so this allegation is no longer part of the case.
False Imprisonment
False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of a person's freedom to leave a place, even for a short time.
The ninth cause of action says Davis was held by tour management and security while they confirmed that a recording of a private meeting had been deleted. The judge found that confinement bears no relationship to the performance of a concert, so it did not qualify as protected creative activity. This claim is one of those still pending.
Assault
In a civil case, assault is conduct that makes another person reasonably fear imminent harmful or offensive contact.
The eighth cause of action concerns statements and conduct directed at Rodriguez after she resigned from the tour. The complaint pleads it against Lizzo individually. The court denied the motion to strike this claim, noting that arguing with someone does not further a creative process, and it also remains pending.
What Is the Current Status of the Lizzo Lawsuit?
The current status of the Lizzo lawsuit is that the dancers' case is paused in Los Angeles Superior Court while Lizzo's appeal of the January 2024 anti-SLAPP ruling is pending in the California Court of Appeal. A June 2026 CNN report quoted the dancers' lawyer as saying the parties were still waiting for the appeals court to set a date for oral argument. No trial date is set, and none was found in any source reviewed.
Davis v. Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc.
Judge Mark H. Epstein of the Los Angeles Superior Court heard Lizzo's special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law on January 2, 2024. The motion argued the dancers' claims targeted conduct tied to Lizzo's creative expression. The court's order, filed January 31, 2024, granted the motion for the nude photoshoot allegations inside the first and second causes of action and for the sixth and seventh causes of action, and denied it for everything else.
That left the Amsterdam club allegations, Quigley's religious and sexual comments, the racial discrimination claim, the assault claim and the false imprisonment claim alive. The judge wrote that it is dangerous to ignore discrimination allegations merely because they happen in a speech-related setting, and that the order was likely only the first stop on the case's journey.
| Court | Los Angeles Superior Court, West District (Department 1) |
| Case number | 23SMCV03553 |
| Judge | Mark H. Epstein |
| Filed | August 1, 2023 |
| Plaintiffs | Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams, Noelle Rodriguez |
| Defendants | Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc.; Melissa Jefferson (Lizzo); Shirlene Quigley |
| Plaintiffs' counsel | West Coast Employment Lawyers (Ronald Zambrano, per press statements) |
| Defendants' counsel | Martin Singer, Michael Weinsten and Melissa Lerner, per Rolling Stone |
| Stage | Trial court proceedings stayed since March 2024 during Lizzo's appeal of the anti-SLAPP ruling |
The appeal asks a higher court to overturn the January 2024 ruling and end the entire case on free speech grounds. Lizzo's lawyers argued the group outings were a necessary part of her creative process. The dancers' lawyers answered that the claims describe workplace mistreatment, not artistic expression. If the Court of Appeal agrees with Lizzo, the case could be dismissed. If it affirms the trial court, the case can return for discovery and a possible jury trial.
What Is the Outcome of the Lizzo Lawsuit?
The outcome of the Lizzo lawsuit is still undecided, because no court has ruled on whether the dancers' remaining claims are true, and Lizzo has said she will not settle. No settlement, verdict or payout has been reported by any court record or major news outlet reviewed.
No dollar figure has been awarded or agreed, and the sources reviewed do not report a specific amount the dancers seek. The only outcomes so far are the procedural rulings described above, and Lizzo's appeal of the rest is pending. A few low-quality websites claim a confidential settlement in February 2026. No court record or news report reviewed confirms it, and Lizzo's own statements in May and June 2026 say she is still fighting the case.
Lizzo said on December 15, 2025 that she was "not settling" and would fight every claim. She repeated on CBS Mornings in May 2026 that she would testify if the case reaches trial.
Her lawyers have said the dismissal of the weight-based claim shows the allegations lacked merit. The dancers' lawyer said the court correctly let the vast majority of claims proceed, and that the plaintiffs chose not to pursue the two claims the judge dismissed.
Any result would depend on the evidence, and neither a settlement nor a ruling would show that the other side was right unless a court says so.
Lizzo Lawsuit Updates
Here are the latest Lizzo lawsuit updates, covering new court filings, rulings, and case-count reports as they're confirmed. No settlement date has been set as of November 2026; the Davis v. Big Grrrl Big Touring dancers' case remains in active pretrial litigation. Every verified development is listed in the timeline below, in order.
Full Lizzo Lawsuit Timeline
Separate Asha Daniels Case Ends in Summary Judgment
U.S. District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha granted summary judgment to Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc. on every count in wardrobe stylist Asha Daniels' federal lawsuit, according to Complex and mxdwn reporting on September 1, 2026. This is a different case from the dancers' lawsuit, and the ruling does not decide any claim brought by Davis, Williams or Rodriguez.
CNN Reports Dancers Still Waiting for Oral Argument
CNN reported on June 29, 2026 that the dancers' attorney Ronald Zambrano and his clients were waiting for the California Court of Appeal to set a date for oral argument in the appeal of the Lizzo anti-SLAPP ruling. The report also quoted Lizzo telling the Today show she declined to settle because she was not afraid of the truth coming out.
Lizzo Tells CBS Mornings She Will Testify
Lizzo told CBS Mornings host Gayle King in an interview that aired May 4, 2026 that she would not settle the dancers' lawsuit and would take the stand if it reached trial. The comments did not change the case's procedural status, which remained an appeal of the January 2024 ruling.
Lizzo Responds to Dismissal of the Fat-Shaming Claims
Lizzo posted statements to Instagram and TikTok on December 15, 2025 saying the weight-based claims against her had been dropped and that she was not settling. Allure reported the statement the same week. Her lawyers said Davis was let go for making an unauthorized recording of a private meeting, which is the defendants' account and has not been decided by a court.
Dancers File Appellate Brief Asking for Trial
The dancers asked the California Court of Appeal to affirm the trial court and let the case go to a jury, according to Billboard on December 11, 2025. Their brief argued the Amsterdam club incident was not creative expression and that free speech doctrine did not shield the alleged conduct.
Dancers Drop Their Cross-Appeal on the Weight-Based Claim
The dancers dropped their own appeal of the January 2024 dismissal of the weight-based disability claim in November 2025, as Billboard and Complex reported in December. Their lawyer said the plaintiffs took a considered approach to leave the two dismissed claims alone and keep focus on the rest.
Lizzo's Appeal Brief Invokes the First Amendment
In mid-2025 Lizzo's lawyers filed an opening brief arguing the lawsuit attacked her First Amendment right to perform her music and advocate for body positivity, according to Rolling Stone. They said the Amsterdam outing was part of team building during an international tour and urged the appeals court to throw out the whole case.
Claims Against Lizzo Personally Dismissed in the Daniels Case
A federal court dismissed the claims against Lizzo individually in Asha Daniels' separate suit in December 2024, according to Lizzo's attorney Melissa Glass, leaving Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc. as the defendant. That ruling is separate from the dancers' lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Trial Court Pauses the Case During Lizzo's Appeal
A Los Angeles judge paused the dancers' case in early March 2024 while Lizzo appealed the anti-SLAPP ruling, Billboard reported on March 8, 2024. The report said the case would be on hold for at least several months, and it has remained paused since.
Judge Epstein Splits the Anti-SLAPP Ruling
Judge Mark H. Epstein filed an order in case 23SMCV03553 granting the special motion to strike for two of nine causes of action, the weight-based disability claim and the interference claim, and for the nude photoshoot allegations in the harassment counts. He denied it for the remaining claims, including false imprisonment, assault and the Amsterdam club allegations.
Hearing on Lizzo's Special Motion to Strike
Judge Epstein heard Lizzo's anti-SLAPP motion on January 2, 2024, according to the date printed on the court's order. Lizzo's side had filed written statements from 18 staffers backing her account, and the dancers' lawyer said Lizzo's declarants were defendants or people on her payroll.
Lizzo Publicly Denies the Allegations
Lizzo posted an Instagram statement on August 3, 2023 saying she was not the villain the media had portrayed, and that she would never criticize or terminate an employee over weight. She called the claims false and sensationalized, and said she was open about her sexuality but could not allow that openness to be used against her.
Dancers File the Complaint in Los Angeles
Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court on August 1, 2023 against Lizzo, Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc. and Shirlene Quigley. The complaint alleged sexual harassment, a hostile work environment, religious and racial discrimination, assault and false imprisonment, among other claims.
Who Are the Defendants in the Lizzo Lawsuit?
The Lizzo lawsuit has three named defendants: Lizzo, her touring company Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc. and dance captain Shirlene Quigley. The complaint does not name every defendant on every claim, and Rolling Stone noted that not all claims were pleaded against each of them. The complaint also names unnamed Doe defendants.
| Defendant | Role alleged in the complaint | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Melissa Jefferson (Lizzo) | Singer and employer alleged to have pressured a dancer at the Amsterdam club and made comments about weight | Denies the allegations and has said she will not settle |
| Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc. | Lizzo's touring production company, a Delaware corporation per the court's caption | Joined Lizzo in the anti-SLAPP motion |
| Shirlene Quigley | Dance captain accused of religious and sexual comments | Joined the anti-SLAPP motion with the other defendants |
Lizzo's lawyers have raised more than 30 defenses in their answer, including that the dancers consented to or ratified the conduct and that the claims belong in arbitration or workers' compensation. They also said the dancers conspired to make an unauthorized recording of a private meeting. These are defense positions, not findings, and the court has not decided them.
How Does the Lizzo Dancers' Lawsuit Compare to the Asha Daniels Case?
The Lizzo dancers' lawsuit differs from the Asha Daniels case in who sued, where it was filed and how far it has come. Both involve allegations of a hostile workplace on the same tour. Daniels, a wardrobe stylist on the 2023 European tour, sued in September 2023 in a case later heard in federal court, where Lizzo says the claims against her individually were dismissed in December 2024. On September 1, 2026, the court granted summary judgment to Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc. on every count.
| Case | Plaintiffs | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Davis v. Big Grrrl Big Touring (this page) | Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams, Noelle Rodriguez | Los Angeles Superior Court, No. 23SMCV03553 | Paused during Lizzo's appeal of the anti-SLAPP ruling |
| Daniels v. Big Grrrl Big Touring (separate) | Asha Daniels | U.S. District Court, Central District of California, listed as 2:24-cv-03571 | Summary judgment for the touring company, reported September 1, 2026 |
Neither case is a class action or a consolidated proceeding, and a ruling in one does not decide the other. The judge in the Daniels case found the alleged conduct, while inappropriate and unprofessional, fell outside Title VII's protection as ordinary workplace tribulations, a finding about Daniels' own evidence, not about the dancers' claims.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Lizzo lawsuit about?
The Lizzo lawsuit is an employment case in which three former dancers, Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, accuse Lizzo, her touring company and dance captain Shirlene Quigley of sexual, religious and racial harassment, assault and false imprisonment during her tour. Lizzo denies the allegations, and no court has decided them.
Is the Lizzo lawsuit a class action?
No. The Lizzo lawsuit is a single case brought by three named plaintiffs, not a class action or multidistrict litigation, so other people cannot join it. It is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court under case number 23SMCV03553.
Where is the Lizzo lawsuit right now?
The Lizzo lawsuit is currently paused while Lizzo appeals the January 2024 anti-SLAPP ruling to the California Court of Appeal. As of CNN's June 2026 report, the parties were waiting for the appeals court to set oral argument, and no trial date is set.
Did Lizzo settle the dancers' lawsuit?
No. Lizzo did not settle the dancers' lawsuit according to every court record and major news report reviewed. She said in December 2025 and again in May 2026 that she is not settling, and no settlement terms have been made public.
Were the fat-shaming claims against Lizzo dismissed?
Yes. The fat-shaming claims against Lizzo were dismissed in January 2024 when Judge Epstein struck the weight-based disability claim, and the dancers dropped their appeal of that ruling in November 2025. The other claims, including false imprisonment and assault, were not dismissed.
Is the Asha Daniels lawsuit part of the Lizzo lawsuit?
No. The Asha Daniels lawsuit is a separate case from the Lizzo dancers' lawsuit, brought by a wardrobe stylist in a different court. A federal judge granted summary judgment to Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc. in the Daniels case in September 2026, and that ruling does not decide the dancers' claims.