Legal News
Page: 68
A Los Angeles judge ruled again Monday that Lady Gaga was not obligated to pay a $500,000 reward for the return of her stolen French bulldogs to the same woman who was criminally charged over the incident.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Doubling down on an earlier decision to toss the case, Judge Holly Fujie dismissed a breach of contract case filed by Jennifer McBride, who pleaded no contest in December to receiving stolen property in connection with the 2021 robbery, in which Gaga’s dog walker Ryan Fischer was shot and nearly killed.
After the judge had given McBride a chance to fix her case, her lawyer argued that she was “in no way involved” with the theft of the dog and only wanted to help the animals. But in Monday’s decision, Judge Fujie said she was unswayed.
“Although plaintiff alleges that her motivation was to protect the bulldogs (and also to collect $500,000.00), this alleged motivation does not negate her guilt of the charge because she has admitted receiving the bulldogs with knowledge that they were stolen property,” the judge wrote. “If anything, the [updated lawsuit] makes even clearer … that plaintiff has unclean hands that prevent her from profiting from her actions.”
McBride is one of five people charged over the Feb. 24, 2021, gunpoint dog-napping of Gaga’s bulldogs, Koji and Gustav. Prosecutors say the singer was not specifically targeted, and that the group was merely trying to steal French bulldogs, which can be worth thousands of dollars. James Howard Jackson, the man who shot Fischer during the robbery, took a plea deal in December and was sentenced to 21 years in prison.
Days after the attack, it was McBride who returned the dogs to police, claiming she’d found the animals tied to a pole and asking about the reward. While police initially told the media that McBride appeared to be “uninvolved and unassociated” with the crime, she was later connected to the robbery and charged with one count of receiving stolen property and one count of being an accessory after the fact. In December, she pleaded no contest to the property charge and was sentenced to two years of probation.
But just two months later, McBride was back in court again — filing a civil lawsuit claiming she deserves the credit for returning the superstar’s bulldogs. The case argued that Gaga’s promise of a reward, which the media characterized as “no questions asked,” was a binding “unilateral” offer to pay for the safe return of the dogs, and that McBride had taken her up on the proposal by flipping on the men who actually committed the robbery.
But Gaga’s lawyers quickly argued that a convicted criminal like McBride cannot “profit from her participation in a crime.” And in July, Judge Fujie agreed.
“The allegations in the complaint are directly related to wrongful conduct that plaintiff pleaded guilty to in the criminal proceeding,” the judge wrote at the time. “Under the circumstances, plaintiff’s successful pursuit of her current claims would allow her to benefit from her admitted wrongdoing.”
In attempting to re-file an updated version of her lawsuit, McBride’s lawyers argued that she had “had no involvement with nor knowledge of the taking of Defendant’s dogs.” But in Monday’s ruling dismissing the case again, Judge Fujie pointed out all the things that McBride’s lawyers didn’t say.
“While Plaintiff alleges that she was not involved in the prior planning or the commission of the theft of Moving Defendant’s bulldogs, she does not deny that at the time she claimed the reward she knew that they were stolen from Moving Defendant, nor does she deny that she received them with that knowledge,” the judge wrote.
Banned Books Week is here, and while book lovers everywhere rally against the censorship of our cherished stories, musicians like Ariana Grande, Idina Menzel and Yola have added their names to the chorus of celebrities and activists in an open letter condemning the ominous threat of book bans. This impassioned message — led by the iconic LeVar Burton of Reading Rainbow fame and propelled by moveon.org — boldly declares about book bans that “It’s only a matter of time before they target other forms of art, expression, and entertainment.”
This point is exactly what I was afraid of as I began working on my latest album, FREADOM: Songs Inspired by Banned Picture Books, and the reason why I want to get more musicians on board to join the movement against book bans.
As a Manhattanite, I wear many hats: touring musician, recording artist, early childhood music educator and mom to an eight-year-old bookworm. Over the past year, I’ve taken a dive deep into the disheartening world of book bans, especially books removed from school and library shelves. My connection to this issue deepened when I discovered that some of my daughter’s beloved books, including Sulwe by Lupita Nyong’o and Alma and How She Got her Name by Juana Martinez-Neal, had been taken away in my own home state of Florida by Governor Ron DeSantis and spearheaded by his supporters in the right-wing group Moms for Liberty.
In the 2021-22 school year, First Amendment advocates PEN America reported that a shocking 317 children’s picture books were banned. Most of these silenced stories belong to BIPOC authors, LGBTQIA+ individuals, books with Jewish themes or stories representing diverse cultural backgrounds. The fact that even our youngest readers aren’t spared is truly devastating. Picture books and children’s music go hand-in-hand for young kids to learn about the world around them and build empathy for others.
When I set out to create songs for FREADOM, I naively thought that only books were under threat from modern censorship, though I vaguely knew about the mid-20th century “banning of immoral music” as it pertained to censorship of jazz and rock & roll due to “provocative” dancing or promoting social change. Growing up in the 1980s, while devouring the shelves of CDs at my local Miami music store, I recall the infamous black and white Parental Advisory labels placed on the plastic because of explicit content. I honestly thought music censorship was a thing of the past and we were collectively cool when it came to free music (and I’m not talking about the Napster kind.)
When I recently visited the PEN America offices, I was shocked to learn about an elementary school in Waukesha, Wis., where they banned a performance of the song “Rainbowland” by Dolly Parton and Miley Cyrus for violating their “controversial content policy.” Over the summer, the school board controversially dismissed first-grade teacher Melissa Tempel for daring to speak out against the musical ban — exercising her First Amendment rights outside of school hours on social media. Teachers in that district are also barred from wearing rainbows, discussing gender pronouns or even mentioning the word “anti-racist.”
As a lyricist, educator, and mother, I can confidently say that there’s nothing controversial about “Rainbowland” and its removal may be seen as an actionable blueprint from the right and a glimpse of what’s coming our way in the land of the “free.”
Book bans are just one piece of a larger plan to dismantle our education system and undermine the core of our democracy one art form at a time, all under the guise of “protecting children.” By standing idle and failing to protect our First Amendment rights now, we are heading on a bleak path forward. It’s only a matter of time before they come after our music, just as they’ve come after our bodily autonomy and voting rights.
Musicians, I urge you to join me in the fight against book bans, defending our First Amendment rights and safeguarding the personal freedoms of all Americans. Come stir up good trouble and take a stand! “We will not be banned!”
Singer/songwriter Joanie Leeds won a 2020 Grammy Award for best children’s album and in her new album, FREADOM, released Sept. 15, she and her band take on book banning through eight original songs that amplify love and inclusion.
Ed Sheeran’s years-long copyright battle — over whether he copied “Thinking Out Loud” from Marvin Gaye’s iconic “Let’s Get It On” — isn’t over just yet.
Although one of Sheeran’s accusers dropped their case last month, a separate set of plaintiffs filed their opening salvo at a federal appeals court on Friday (Sept. 29), setting the stage for years more litigation and a ruling that could revive the case against the pop star.
“The district court’s erroneous decisions should be reversed, and appellant’s case restored so that it can proceed to trial,” Sheeran’s accusers wrote in their opening brief to the appeals court.
Sheeran was first sued over “Thinking Out Loud” by the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote the famed 1973 tune with Gaye. It was that long-running case that culminated in a May jury verdict that cleared Sheeran of any wrongdoing. Last week, Kathryn Griffin Townsend’s lawyers dropped their efforts to overturn that verdict, ending that leg of the legal battle.
But Sheeran has long faced a separate, closely related case filed by an entity called Structured Asset Sales (owned by industry executive David Pullman) that controls a different one-third stake in Townsend’s copyrights. In May, weeks after the big jury verdict, a federal judge tossed out that case, too, ruling that it was seeking an “impermissible monopoly over a basic musical building block.”
Unlike Griffin, however, Structured Asset Sales seems ready for a long appellate battle.
In their opening brief Friday at the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, Structure Asset Sales’ lawyers cited a wide range of supposed errors by Judge Louis Stanton in that May ruling dismissing the case, including his decision about “musical building blocks.”
But they mostly focused on what they said was a far more basic error: that Judge Stanton refused to let them cite the famous recorded version of “Let’s Get It On” in making their case. Instead, the judge ruled that Structured Asset Sales owned only the rights to a “deposit copy” — the basic notation filed at the Copyright Office decades ago to secure a copyright registration. That erroneous holding, the company’s lawyers said, “severely” limited their rights and unfairly hurt their ability to win the case.
“Musical notation is a way of trying to capture the ephemeral in the physical, but it is and has always been limited in its ability to capture every nuance of the work,” Structured Asset Sales’ lawyers wrote. “Deposit copies do not, and were never meant to be, a limitation on the scope of the copyright they represent.”
Structure Asset Sales’ lawyers also called into question the timing of Judge Stanton’s ruling, which came just weeks after the jury verdict in the Griffin case and seemingly reversed his own previous decision that the case would need to go to trial. In an unusual flourish, the company’s lawyers said the judge’s logic was “a mystery.”
An attorney for Sheeran did not immediately return a request for comment. Sheeran’s legal team will file their own appellate brief in the months to come.
Las Vegas police made an arrest on Friday morning (Sept. 29) in one of the most vexing high-profile cold cases in the city’s history. According to the Associated Press, Las Vegas PD arrested Duane “Keffe D” Davis in connection with the unsolved drive-by shooting of Tupac Shakur on the Las Vegas strip on Sept. 7, 1996.
The unsolved murder of the legendary rapper in a brazen nighttime assault on the city’s most famous boulevard had vexed authorities and fascinated the public for nearly 30 years, spawning a number of documentaries, investigative TV series, books and theories about who gunned down the then-25-year-old MC.
Davis was reportedly arrested early Friday morning, with the exact charges he was taken in on not announced at press time; two officials with first-hand knowledge of the arrest said Davis was expected to be indicted later in the day.
The 60-year-old alleged member of the South Side Compton Crips street gang was the uncle of gang member Orlando “Baby Lane” Anderson, long considered the prime suspect in Shakur’s killing. Anderson was beaten by the rapper and his entourage on the night of the murder, allegedly in retaliation for Anderson’s role in snatching a Death Row chain at a Los Angeles Mall in July 1996; Anderson, 23, who denied involvement in the Shakur murder, was shot and killed in 1998 in a gang shooting and was never charged with the killing.
Las Vegas PD announced in July that they had searched Davis’ Henderson, Nevada home in connection with the Shakur murder investigation, though they did not give any additional information at the time about what they found or what spurred the search.
NBC News reported at the time that a copy of the warrant it obtained noted that authorities were looking at computers and other electronic devices, as well as audio recordings and that they took away a Pokeball USB drive, a black iPhone, two iPads and a purple Toshiba laptop, among other items.
Shakur was gunned down inside a black BMW driven by Death Row Records founder Marion “Suge” Knight when it was stopped at a red light near the Las Vegas Strip on the night of a Mike Tyson fight. A white Cadillac pulled up next to the passenger side of Tupac’s car and someone inside fired 14 rounds. Hit four times, Shakur was rushed to a nearby hospital, where he died a week later. The unsolved case has spawned a number of conspiracy theories about the murder, including allegations that it was tied to the similarly unsolved murder of the Notorious B.I.G. in Los Angeles on March 9, 1997 as part of a media-whipped East Coast-West Coast rap rivalry.
In 2018, Davis claimed in an episode of BET’s Death Row Chronicles that he knew the name of Shakur’s killer, though he did not supply one at the time, even as he said Anderson could have been the gunman. Davis also claimed in his 2019 memoir, Compton Street Legend, that he was in the Cadillac on the night of the shooting and has described himself as the last living witness to the incident. No arrests had previously been made in the decadeslong investigation and Nevada does not have a statute of limitations for prosecuting homicide cases.
Retired LAPD detective Greg Kading — who spent years investigating the Shakur murder and wrote a book about it — interviewed Davis in 2008 and 2009 during the LAPD ‘s investigation into the Shakur and Smalls killings. He told the AP that he thought the Shakur investigation gained momentum recently after Davis’ description of his role in his memoir.
“It’s those events that have given Las Vegas the ammunition and the leverage to move forward,” Kading told the AP before Davis’ arrest. “Prior to Keefe D’s public declarations, the cases were unprosecutable as they stood… He put himself squarely in the middle of the conspiracy,” Kading said of Davis. “He had acquired the gun, he had given the gun to the shooter and he had been present in the vehicle when they hunted down and located both Tupac and Suge (Knight).”
Lizzo has lodged her first legal response to the lawsuit brought by three of her former dancers in August.
In what amounts to a 31-point rebuttal against claims that the dancers were subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment while on tour with the singer, Lizzo and her Big Grrrl Big Touring company are requesting that the court dismiss the case with prejudice (meaning it cannot be refiled). In the event the court declines to dismiss it, the defendants are requesting a jury trial.
In the original complaint, filed Aug. 1 in Los Angeles court, dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez accused Lizzo (real name Melissa Jefferson) and Big Grrrl Big Touring of several allegations. Among them: that Lizzo pressured dancers to attend a sex show in Amsterdam and interact with the nude performers; that dance team captain Shirlene Quigley repeatedly engaged in behavior that made them feel uncomfortable; that Lizzo “called attention” to a dancer’s weight gain following a performance; that employees of the touring company singled out Black dancers by accusing them of “being lazy, unprofessional and having bad attitudes”; and that Lizzo denied dancers bathroom breaks during an “excruciating re-audition” process.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The new document — filed Wednesday by Lizzo’s lawyers, Martin Singer, Michael Weinsten and Melissa Lerner — offers more than 30 wide-ranging defenses to the dancers’ complaint. They include:
That the plaintiffs “ratified, acquiesced, condoned, and/or approved of the acts or omissions of Defendants, in whole or in part, about which Plaintiffs now complain”;
That the defendants’ alleged conduct “was undertaken in good faith and with good cause” and “undertaken for legitimate reasons reasonably related to one or more lawful business purposes”;
That the plaintiffs are “guilty of unclean hands,” which in legal terms means they have done something unethical and should therefore be denied relief;
That the plaintiffs should be barred from pursuing the case based on the doctrine of estoppel, meaning they have acted unfairly or made false representations in bringing the lawsuit;
That the plaintiffs failed to “mediate in good faith pursuant” to their contract terms with Big Grrrl Big Touring and are subject to arbitration under those terms;
That the claims are preempted by California’s Workers’ Compensation Act and should therefore be decided by the workers’ compensation appeals board as opposed to the court;
That if the plaintiffs were harmed as alleged, the plaintiffs and/or others who are not listed as defendants “contributed, in whole or in part,” to that harm;
That the defendants’ alleged actions arose from the exercise of their rights of free speech and/or religion;
That plaintiffs failed to “avail themselves” of internal anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies and complaint procedures while employed on the tour;
That plaintiffs’ claims regarding discrimination or retaliation should be barred because any employment decisions were made “for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-pretextual reasons and Defendants acted out of business necessity”;
That the plaintiffs “have failed to plead and cannot establish facts sufficient to support allegations of malice, oppression or fraud”;
That defendants are not liable for punitive damages because they did not “engage in wrongful conduct,” “authorize or ratify any wrongful conduct,” or “have advance knowledge of the unfitness of any employee and employ that employee with a conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others.”
“This is the first step of a legal process in which Lizzo and her team will demonstrate that they have always practiced what they’ve preached — whether it comes to promoting body positivity, leading a safe and supportive workplace or protecting individuals from any kind of harassment,” said Lizzo spokesperson Stefan Friedman in a statement. “Any and all claims to the contrary are ridiculous, and we look forward to proving so in a court of law.”
In response to the new filing, the dancers’ attorney, Neama Rahmani, released the following statement: “Lizzo’s answer merely consists of boilerplate objections that have nothing to do with the case. That said, the key takeaway is that Lizzo is agreeing to our clients’ demand for a jury trial. We look forward to presenting our case in court and letting a panel of her peers decide who is telling the truth, Lizzo and her team who continue to shame the victims or the plaintiffs and so many others who have come forward sharing similar stories of abuse and harassment.”
Though this is Lizzo’s first legal response to the lawsuit, the singer categorically denied the dancers’ claims two days after it was filed, stating on social media that the allegations were as “unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous to not be addressed.”
“These sensationalized stories are coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional,” she added. Later that day, the dancers appeared on CNN This Morning to rehash their allegations and called Lizzo’s statement “disheartening” and “incredibly frustrating.”
Two weeks later, Lizzo’s Big Grrrls dance team released a statement in support of the singer, saying they “had the time of our lives” on the tour and continuing, “The commitment to character and culture taking precedence over every movement and moment has been one of the Greatest lessons and Blessings that we could possibly could ask for.”
The Aug. 1 lawsuit is the first of two that have been brought against Lizzo. Earlier this month, the singer — along with her wardrobe manager Amanda Nomura, tour manager Carlina Gugliotta and Big Grrrl Big Touring — were sued by clothing designer Asha Daniels, who alleged sexual and racial harassment, disability discrimination, assault, illegal retaliatory termination and more while working on Lizzo’s Special tour.
The second lawsuit dropped the same day Lizzo was due to receive the Black Music Action Coalition’s Quincy Jones Humanitarian Award at the organization’s 2023 gala.
While accepting the honor that evening, Lizzo — who was introduced by cast members from her Emmy-winning reality show, Watch Out For the Big Grrrls — gave an emotional speech in which she said, “I’m going to continue to be who I am, no matter who’s watching. I’m going to continue to amplify the voices of marginalized people because I have a microphone and I know how to use it. And I’m going to continue to put on, represent and create safe spaces for Black fat women because that’s what the f— I do!”
She continued, “This support right now means the world to me.”
On Tuesday (Sept. 26), singer-songwriter Rick Astley settled the vocal impersonation lawsuit he filed in January against meme rapper Yung Gravy and his collaborators for an undisclosed sum.
Filed in Los Angeles court, the lawsuit had claimed that while Yung Gravy and his collaborators secured rights to re-record the melody and lyrics of his 1987 hit “Never Gonna Give You Up” for their track “Betty (Get Money),” they “flagrantly impersonated” Astley’s distinctive vocals from the original track, thereby infringing his so-called right of publicity. “Betty (Get Money)” peaked at No. 39 on the Billboard Hot 100 and No. 9 on Billboard‘s Hot Rap Songs chart.
Rights of publicity laws, which vary state by state, protect public figures from the commercial exploitation of their names, voices and likenesses without their authorization. Astley argued that by mimicking Astley’s voice in a “nearly indistinguishable” way, Gravy’s team “obliterated” Astley’s chance to “collaborate with another artist and/or producer to create something new with his voice from ‘Never Gonna Give You Up’” and take advantage of other commercial opportunities.
The lawsuit arrived just as emerging artificial intelligence (AI) tools had sparked new conversations around right of publicity protections for artists. The debate hit a fever pitch in April when an anonymous TikTok creator named Ghostwriter made headlines with his song “Heart On My Sleeve,” which employed an AI voice filter to deepfake the voices of Drake and The Weeknd without their knowledge or consent. Since then, some leaders, including Universal Music Group’s general counsel/executive vp of business and legal affairs, Jeffery Harleston, have called for a federalized right of publicity to protect artists against the seemingly growing issue.
Notably, Gravy’s song did not employ AI to mimic Astley’s trademark tone. Instead, “Betty (Get Money)” producer Nick “PopNick” Seeley recreated Astley’s voice the old-fashioned way: through trial and error in the studio. In a previous interview with Billboard, Seeley said he has “a knack for vintage stuff” and has also helped recreate older recordings for other songs, including “I Like It” by Cardi B and “Dirty Iyanna” by YoungBoy Never Broke Again.
In a previous interview with Billboard, producer Marc “Fresh2Def” Soto — half of the duo ClickNPress –said it’s common for producers to be asked to recreate older songs as closely as possible. “A record label will be like, ‘Hey we can’t get the clearance for the sample, but we can get an interpolation, would you be able to replay XYZ thing?’ I’ve been through that on several records with different labels,” Soto says. However, most of these so-called “replays” of old songs don’t end up being quite as exact as the one in Astley’s case.
Astley was represented by attorney Richard S. Busch, the same lawyer who represented Marvin Gaye’s family in the controversial “Blurred Lines” trial. Gravy and the other defendants were represented by attorney Michael J. Niborski.
Busch and Niborski did not immediately respond to Billboard’s requests for comment.
Proponents of the Help Independent Tracks Succeed (HITS) Act are making a renewed effort to get the bill through Congress.
On Wednesday (Sept. 27), the Recording Academy and the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM) sent a letter to House Ways and Means Committee chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) and ranking member Richard Neal (D-MA) urging them to add the bill to end-of-year tax legislation.
The HITS Act would provide an extra tax break to musicians, technicians and producers for recording sessions, allowing them to deduct 100% of recording expenses up to $150,000 on their taxes in the year they’re incurred. That would be a change from the current law, which requires music creators and labels to amortize those expenses over the economic life of a sound recording, a period that usually ranges between three and four years.
“The bill is designed and tailored to specifically incentivize independent artists, songwriters and labels to produce new music, sparking important creative investments in countless music small businesses across the country,” reads the letter, signed by Recording Academy chief advocacy and public policy officer Todd Dupler and A2IM president/CEO Richard James Burgess. “This targeted approach makes the HITS Act a fiscally responsible investment in the American creative economy.”
The letter goes on to point out that film, TV and live theatrical productions all enjoy the option of fully deducting production costs in the year they’re incurred and argues that music productions should get the same treatment. For independent creators and labels, being forced to amortize expenses “slows down their reinvestment in new projects that can fuel growth,” the letter adds.
Speaking to Billboard last year, Burgess put it in starker terms, noting that specifically for independents, “getting $150,000 per project [that can be] written off against your taxes in the year that you incurred it, could really make a difference between being able to make another record next year or not.”
The bipartisan HITS Act was first introduced in the House on July 31, 2020 (followed by a companion bill in the Senate on Dec. 3, 2020), though it failed to pass as part of the two pandemic relief packages or as part of the $3.5 billion budget reconciliation package known as Build Back Better, which was ultimately halved and renamed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 before being signed into law in August 2022. A similar lobbying effort at the end of last year to pass the bill ahead of the changeover to a new, split Congress — Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in January while Democrats held the Senate — also failed.
Read the full letter below.
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Neal:
On behalf of independent music makers and record labels we call on the Committee of Ways and Means to advance into law the bipartisan and bicameral Help Independent Tracks Succeed (HITS) Act (H.R. 1259) as part of any tax policy package considered before the end of the year. The HITS Act is a low-cost and commonsense modification to existing U.S. tax law that will incentivize the production of new sound recordings and songwriter demos by allowing qualified productions to deduct 100% of their costs upfront. With an annual deduction limit of $150,000, the bill is designed and tailored to specifically incentivize independent artists, songwriters and labels to produce new music, sparking important creative investments in countless music small businesses across the country. This targeted approach makes the HITS Act a fiscally responsible investment in the American creative economy.
The HITS Act also brings much-needed parity to the tax code for all creative industries. Currently, under Sec. 181 of the Internal Revenue Code, qualified film, television, and live theatrical productions may elect to fully deduct new production costs in the year they are incurred. Music production, which occurs in every state and congressional district, deserves the same treatment. Instead of being able to fully deduct production expenses in the year they occur, independent music makers must currently amortize production expenses for tax purposes over the full economic life of their creation. For small creators and the small businesses that invest in their careers, this timing difference slows down their reinvestment in new projects that can fuel growth. The HITS Act harmonizes the tax code and ensures that all the major creative industries are treated similarly.
As you consider how to best craft comprehensive tax legislation this year, the music community strongly urges you to include the HITS Act in any vehicle. It represents exactly the type of bipartisan, bicameral, and non-controversial economic investment that Congress should be proud to support. Passage of H.R. 1259 is a smart and simple step that will make a lasting difference for countless independent music creators and music small businesses.
Thank you for your consideration.
Signed,
Dr. Richard James BurgessPresident and CEOAmerican Association of Independent Music (A2IM)
Todd DuplerChief Advocacy and Public Policy OfficerRecording Academy
Shakira is again facing tax charges in Spain after Barcelona prosecutors charged the singer with allegedly failing to pay $7.1 million in tax on her 2018 income. The Associated Press reported that the action announced on Tuesday (Sept. 26) is tied to allegations that Shakira (born Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll), 46, used an offshore company […]
The yearslong legal battle over Ed Sheeran‘s “Thinking Out Loud” has officially drawn to a close. The heirs of Ed Townsend, co-writer on Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On”, who sued Sheeran in 2016 for allegedly infringing the classic song in his smash 2014 single, have officially dropped their appeal in the long-running case, according […]
Lizzo is facing another explosive lawsuit filed by a former employee.
On Thursday (Sept. 21), Asha Daniels — a clothing designer who worked on Lizzo’s Special Tour earlier this year — filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging sexual and racial harassment, disability discrimination, assault, illegal retaliatory termination and more. In addition to Lizzo, the lawsuit names wardrobe manager Amanda Nomura, tour manager Carlina Gugliotta and Lizzo’s Big Grrrl Big Touring company as defendants.
In the lawsuit, Daniels claims that after being hired to join the superstar’s world tour in February 2023 to alter and repair the wardrobe she’d previously designed for Lizzo’s dancers, she was “almost immediately…introduced to [a] culture of racism and bullying” and that she “suffered constant anxiety and panic attacks” as a result. In one allegation, she claims that Lizzo’s dancers were forced to change in “small, tight changing areas…with little to no privacy” and that the stage crew, “primarily white males, would lewdly gawk, sneer, and giggle” while watching them dress. She alleges that after expressing concern to Nomura about the lack of privacy, the wardrobe manager “laughed” and “advised” her not to tell anyone else about the issue or try to fix it.
Explore
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
The complaint contextualizes these incidents as part of “a set up to humiliate, degrade, alienate, and, in some cases, fire, the Black female performers.” Notably, three of these dancers — Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez — made similar allegations after filing suit against Lizzo and Big Grrrl Big Touring in August. Their attorney, Ron Zambrano of West Coast Employment Lawyers, is also representing Daniels in her case.
While Lizzo isn’t directly implicated in any of the incidents outlined in Daniels’ complaint, the “About Damn Time” singer is effectively accused of turning a blind eye to the toxic behavior of her employees, including Daniels’ direct boss Nomura, who bears the brunt of the allegations.
“Throughout the entirety of her employment,” the lawsuit alleges, Daniels — a Black woman — witnessed Nomura making “racist and fatphobic comments,” including by mocking Lizzo and her background dancers, “doing an offensive stereotypical impression of a Black woman” and referring to Black women on the tour as “‘dumb,’ ‘useless’ and ‘fat.’” After allegedly confronting Nomura over her behavior, Daniels claims Nomura “ignored” her and proceeded to directly target her with harassment.
In one particularly inflammatory allegation, Daniels claims that Nomura rolled “a heavy rack of clothing” over Daniels’ foot. When Daniels allegedly told Nomura she needed to sit down “as her foot was in serious pain,” she says Nomura “shoved” her into the clothing rack “while asserting Plaintiff should not make excuses about her foot.” Claiming that the shove from Nomura caused her to “roll her ankle,” Daniels says that when she showed up for work the following day wearing Crocs to “minimize the pain,” Nomura demanded that she change into tennis shoes even after Daniels told her they were painful to walk in.
The suit accuses Nomura of a litany of other offenses, including making threatening statements against Daniels and the rest of the crew “on several occasions,” shoving a crew member after the crew member threatened to quit and saying that she would “kill a bitch if it came down to it” if anyone threatened her job. She also claims that Nomura discouraged her from interacting directly with Lizzo or Lizzo’s boyfriend — and that if she ever did, she should avoid dressing “attractively” to avoid the singer becoming “jealous.”
More broadly, Daniels claims she experienced frequent sexual harassment by the Big Grrrl Big Touring team. Among other offenses, she alleges that a backstage manager “sent a photo graphically depicting male genitalia” on a group chat that included her and more than 30 other tour employees. In another accusation that distinctly echoes the lawsuit filed by Lizzo’s former dancers, Daniels says she witnessed Nomura, crew members and Lizzo’s management “openly discussing hiring sex workers for lewd sex acts, attending sex shows, and buying hard drugs” and that she felt pressured to join those activities.
Daniels further claims that after informing Gugliotta of the behavior she’d witnessed — and after being “informed” that her complaints were relayed to Lizzo — she was fired by Lizzo’s team roughly a month after she began work on the tour. On the day she was fired but before she was informed of her termination, she also alleges she was “denied medical care” after suffering “an allergic reaction” and “pressured” to continue working after informing Nomura and Lizzo’s management about it.
In the aftermath of her experiences, Daniels claims she “continues to suffer ongoing anxiety and PTSD,” “migraines,” “brain fog, and “fatigue” from the experience.
Gugliotta and a representative for Lizzo did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s request for comment. A contact for Nomura could not immediately be located.
Daniels is asking for damages including unpaid wages, loss of earnings and deferred compensation; general damages “including but not limited to” emotional distress; other special damages including for medical expenses; punitive damages; and more.
Two days after the August lawsuit was filed, Lizzo refuted the allegations on social media, stating the dancers’ claims were as “unbelievable as they sound and too outrageous to not be addressed.”
“These sensationalized stories are coming from former employees who have already publicly admitted that they were told their behavior on tour was inappropriate and unprofessional,” she added. Later that day, the dancers appeared on CNN This Morning to rehash their allegations and called Lizzo’s statement “disheartening” and “incredibly frustrating.”
Two weeks later, Lizzo’s Big Grrrls dance team released a statement in support of the singer, saying they “had the time of our lives” on the tour and continuing, “The commitment to character and culture taking precedence over every movement and moment has been one of the Greatest lessons and Blessings that we could possibly could ask for.”
Following the initial lawsuit, lawyers for the dancers stated that six more people had approached them with similar stories about Lizzo, though Daniels’ lawsuit is the first to emerge in the nearly two months since.
Lizzo is due to be honored with the Black Music Action Coalition’s Quincy Jones Humanitarian Award at the organization’s 2023 gala on Thursday.