Court dismisses all remaining claims in former stylist's lawsuit against Lizzo's touring company
A federal court in California has dismissed all remaining claims brought by former wardrobe team member Asha Daniels against Big Grrrl Big Touring, Inc., bringing her nearly three-year dispute to an end at the federal trial-court level. U.S. District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha on September 1, 2026, granted the defense's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the evidence presented by Daniels was insufficient for the remaining claims of sexual and racial harassment, disability discrimination, and a hostile work environment to be submitted to a jury. The decision does not mean that the court found that none of the described events could have occurred, but rather that, according to the judge's reasoning and the legal standards applicable to the remaining claims, the evidentiary record did not reach the threshold required for the case to proceed. Lizzo, whose full name is Melissa Jefferson, was removed from the case as an individual defendant back in December 2024, so the latest ruling primarily concerns her touring company and the remaining claims in that dispute. Daniels's legal team said that it disagrees with the decision and is considering further legal steps.
Summary judgment for Big Grrrl Big Touring
According to reports by Billboard, Rolling Stone and other media outlets that reviewed the latest court ruling, Judge Aenlle-Rocha accepted the defense's arguments that, after years of litigation, no genuine dispute remained over key facts that would justify a trial on the remaining federal claims. Such a decision in U.S. civil procedure is known as summary judgment. Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may grant it when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the party filing the motion is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In doing so, the court considers the evidence gathered and assesses whether there is a basis on which a reasonable jury could rule in favor of the other side. In Daniels's case, it concluded that no such basis had been shown for the remaining claims.
According to published portions of the decision, the judge wrote that Daniels had not identified conduct by Big Grrrl Big Touring employees that would demonstrate general hostility toward women or different treatment of men and women in the workplace. He considered some of the described situations inappropriate and unprofessional, but concluded that they nevertheless did not cross the legal threshold required for liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That federal law prohibits employment discrimination, including on the basis of sex and race, and according to guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the EEOC, harassment can become unlawful when it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. The question of whether the individual incidents and their overall context reached that threshold was at the center of the dispute between the two sides. The defense argued that the evidence did not reach it, while Daniels's side believes the court viewed the events too separately.
What Daniels alleged about working on the European leg of the tour
Daniels originally filed her lawsuit on September 21, 2023, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, several weeks after three former dancers filed a separate lawsuit against Lizzo and members of her team. According to the court record and the statement issued at the time by her lawyers, she worked in wardrobe during the European leg of the Special Tour from approximately February 14 to March 5, 2023. She claimed that she was exposed to a sexually charged and racially hostile environment, discrimination, retaliation after reporting problems, and physical incidents at work. In earlier versions of the complaint, she also alleged extremely long working days, denial of breaks, and problems related to injuries and medical care. All of these were allegations by the plaintiff, and Lizzo and her legal team disputed them from the outset.
In the operative version of the complaint from 2024, according to an earlier federal court order, Daniels asserted nine legal causes of action, including sexual harassment and racial harassment under Title VII, disability-related discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, retaliation and unpaid overtime under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and a claim for an alleged physical assault against then-wardrobe manager Amanda Nomura. The case narrowed considerably during 2024. According to a court order dated December 2, 2024, Nomura had already been removed from the proceedings in April of that year at Daniels's request, while the court later dismissed a number of claims against Lizzo and tour manager Carlina Gugliotta. The court also dismissed the unpaid-overtime claim in its entirety at that time.
Why Lizzo was no longer an individual defendant
It is important to distinguish the latest decision from the December 2024 ruling that removed Lizzo personally from the case. In that order, the court found that under the federal statutes Daniels invoked, she could not pursue those claims against Lizzo and Gugliotta as individuals in the manner in which she had pleaded them. The court document shows that corporate entities were identified as the employers, while Lizzo and Gugliotta were listed as individuals associated with management. For that reason, the court dismissed the first six causes of action against the two of them without leave to amend. That decision reduced Lizzo's personal legal exposure in Daniels's case, but it did not at that time end the dispute against Big Grrrl Big Touring.
In the meantime, the case had been removed from California state court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. An earlier order states that the removal occurred on April 30, 2024, and that parts of the original claims were problematic also because much of the alleged conduct and work took place in Europe. Even before removal, the California court had concluded that certain California statutes invoked by Daniels could not automatically be applied to work performed outside the state and outside the United States. After amendments to the complaint, the dispute therefore became focused on federal causes of action. By September 2026, the remaining case against the touring company had reached the stage at which the defense sought judgment without a trial.
Court did not accept claims of a sexually hostile work environment
One of the key parts of the latest decision concerned the claim that Daniels had been subjected to a hostile work environment because of her sex. According to Billboard's report on the ruling, the plaintiff relied on vulgar gestures and sexual jokes by one coworker, including situations involving penis-shaped candy. Daniels's legal team later, in its response to the decision, also mentioned sexually explicit photographs and comments by managers as part of the broader context. The judge, however, concluded that the incidents she identified were isolated, that they were not directed at her in a manner that would satisfy the legal test, and that the evidentiary record did not show general hostility toward women or unequal treatment of women compared with men. In that context, he wrote that the described conduct, although it may be inappropriate and unprofessional, falls outside the protection of Title VII under the standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court through case law.
That is an important legal distinction because federal law does not automatically turn every rude, offensive, or unprofessional act in the workplace into unlawful harassment. The EEOC states that, depending on the circumstances, a hostile work environment analysis considers the severity or frequency of the conduct, its nature, and its effect on working conditions. Daniels's legal team argues that the combined effect of multiple events was precisely what should have been assessed by a jury. Attorney Ron Zambrano said after the decision that, in their view, the court examined the evidence too narrowly and thereby diminished the cumulative significance of sexually charged situations. He announced that the legal team was considering appropriate next steps, leaving open the possibility of an attempt to challenge the ruling, although as of September 2, 2026, it had not been confirmed that a new appeal had already been filed.
Racial harassment and alleged comments about other female performers
The court also dismissed the remaining portion of the claims related to racial harassment. According to Billboard's report on the ruling, Daniels alleged, among other things, that Amanda Nomura used racially offensive language and told her that Lizzo had allegedly used racist terms when speaking about other well-known Black female musicians, including Beyoncé and Megan Thee Stallion. The judge concluded that there was no basis in the evidence for the assertion that Nomura herself uttered a racial slur or spoke about a specific Black person, or Black people generally, using racially offensive language. As for the alleged recounting of Lizzo's words, the court found that even when viewed in the light most favorable to Daniels, such a vague allegation would not permit a reasonable judge or jury to conclude that the workplace was objectively racially hostile.
At the summary-judgment stage, merely making an accusation is not enough; a party seeking to reach trial must show enough admissible evidence to establish a genuine disputed issue concerning facts material to the legal claim. The court concluded that Daniels had not done so with respect to the remaining allegations of a racially hostile environment. Those claims therefore will not be presented to a jury in this trial-level proceeding unless a higher court eventually changes the decision.
Injuries did not satisfy the ADA disability criterion
Another important part of the ruling concerned disability discrimination. Daniels claimed that she sustained injuries while working, including an incident in which, according to her allegation, a heavy clothing rack rolled over her foot and a situation in which the wardrobe manager pushed her. Current reports about the ruling also mention a broken fingernail while loading boxes and an allergic reaction. The judge emphasized that he did not wish to minimize the pain Daniels may have experienced, but concluded that the listed injuries were not sufficiently serious or long-lasting to satisfy, based on the evidence presented, the definition of disability required for her remaining ADA claims.
Under the text of the ADA and EEOC interpretations, disability in the employment context includes a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or a situation in which a person is regarded as having such an impairment. The law requires broad interpretation of its protections, but at the same time does not mean that every short-term injury automatically meets the statutory definition. Daniels's side disputes the way the court applied that standard. Zambrano said that they disagree with the assessment that a sprain, limping, and working while injured were not sufficient in the specific circumstances and believes that a jury should have considered the broader context and disputed facts.
Lizzo and her legal team call the decision a major victory
Lizzo's attorney Melissa Y. Glass called the latest ruling a complete victory for Lizzo, her touring company, and the other individuals who had been involved in the case in a statement to the media. The defense continues to maintain that there was no legal basis for Daniels's allegations and announced that it is considering options to protect its clients' rights following the ruling. Lizzo also commented on the decision on social media, saying that she felt relieved and again rejecting the allegations made by the former wardrobe team member. In her response, she also emphasized that Daniels worked on the tour for less than three weeks and that, according to Lizzo, she never personally met her. Those assertions are part of Lizzo's public response to the case and should not be equated with separate factual findings by the court except where the court's decision expressly confirms them.
Daniels's side took the opposite position. Zambrano said that they respect the court and the legal process but believe that the judge improperly weighed evidence that, in their argument, should have been presented to a jury. He particularly emphasized the cumulative effect of the alleged sexually charged incidents and disagreement with the assessment of the ADA claims. This means that the dispute at the federal trial-court level has ended, but appellate mechanisms remain available. The success of any potential challenge to the ruling cannot be assumed in advance.
Separate lawsuit by three former dancers is still ongoing
The latest decision does not concern the separate, even more widely publicized lawsuit filed in August 2023 by former dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez. They sued Lizzo, Big Grrrl Big Touring and dance team captain Shirlene Quigley in a Los Angeles court, asserting a series of separate allegations involving sexual, religious and racial harassment, discrimination, physical assault, and false imprisonment. Lizzo has also denied their allegations. The court previously dismissed some claims in that case, including portions related to alleged body-shaming, and during 2025 the plaintiffs dropped their appeal concerning that part of the decision. However, according to current reports from 2026, the remaining portions of that case have not been finally resolved and the proceedings remain active.
For that reason, the ruling in Daniels's case does not represent the end of all legal disputes connected with Lizzo's tour and working environment. These are two separate lawsuits, with different plaintiffs, evidence, and procedural paths. The outcome of one case does not by itself determine the outcome of the other. For Daniels, a decision was issued on September 1, 2026, eliminating all remaining claims before the federal trial court, while the dispute involving the three former dancers continues and still has no final judicial resolution.
Sources:
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California – order dated December 2, 2024, regarding the earlier dismissal of claims and the procedural history of Daniels v. Big Grrrl Big Touring (link)
- Billboard Brasil / Billboard – report on the September 1, 2026 decision, the reasoning behind the summary judgment and statements by legal representatives (link)
- Rolling Stone Australia – report on the dismissal of the remaining claims, the ADA portion of the ruling and the response from Daniels's attorney (link)
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – legal framework for Title VII, workplace harassment and the definition of disability under the ADA (link)
- U.S. Courts – Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56, legal standard for summary judgment (link)
- West Coast Employment Lawyers – original September 2023 publication containing the plaintiff's allegations and context regarding the filing of the lawsuit (link)
- ABC News – original report on the separate lawsuit filed by Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez in August 2023 (link)