A federal judge in Los Angeles has dismissed the remaining claims in former wardrobe assistant Asha Daniels's harassment and discrimination lawsuit against singer Lizzo's touring company and other defendants, bringing Daniels's nearly three-year federal case to an end. U.S. District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha granted summary judgment after concluding that the evidence and alleged conduct did not meet the legal thresholds required for the claims to proceed to trial.
Daniels filed the case in September 2023 after working for less than three weeks on the European leg of Lizzo's Special Tour. She alleged that the tour's wardrobe operation exposed her to racial and sexual harassment, disability discrimination, excessive physical demands, unsafe conditions and retaliation after she raised concerns. The defendants denied wrongdoing and sought dismissal.
In his ruling, Aenlle-Rocha said the incidents described in the record, even where inappropriate or unprofessional, fell within what Supreme Court precedent treats as ordinary workplace tribulations rather than conduct protected against by Title VII. Reports citing the court papers said the judge also found no identified evidence that wardrobe manager Amanda Nomura directed a racial slur at a Black person or Black people.
The court also rejected Daniels's disability-related theory. According to the published accounts of the decision, the injuries she attributed to a clothing rack rolling over her foot were not sufficiently severe or long-lasting to qualify as disabilities under the relevant law. The ruling disposed of the seven claims that remained after an additional labor-law count had been dismissed earlier.
Lizzo, whose legal name is Melissa Jefferson, had already been removed as an individual defendant in December 2024. After the new decision, she said on social media that she felt relieved and maintained that she had refused to settle because she wanted to contest the claims. Her lawyer described the summary judgment as a complete victory for the touring company and the other defendants in Daniels's action.
The decision resolves only Daniels's federal lawsuit and should not be confused with separate litigation brought by three former dancers over other allegations. Summary judgment means the judge found no sufficient legal and evidentiary basis for Daniels's remaining claims to go before a jury; it does not amount to a factual ruling on every disputed workplace interaction. Any further step would depend on whether Daniels seeks appellate review.
Comments