Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
Seven Employment Claims Took the Stage. Lizzo’s Touring Company Was Good as H*ll at Defeating Them.
Lizzo’s touring company swept every remaining claim from a former wardrobe assistant’s lawsuit off the stage. The celebrity headline masks an evidence lesson.
TL;DR: A federal court granted summary judgment to Lizzo’s touring company on seven employment claims. Some alleged conduct was inappropriate, but the evidence did not establish unlawful harassment, an ADA disability, or protected FLSA activity.
A three-week tour produced seven remaining federal claims
How did allegations of degradation, denied medical care, harassment, and retaliation end without a trial? The employee worked as a wardrobe assistant on the European and United Kingdom leg of Lizzo’s arena tour. She was terminated less than three weeks after starting.
Her lawsuit originally included Lizzo and others, but seven claims against the touring company remained. On September 1, the court granted the company summary judgment on all seven and denied the plaintiff’s late request to add a Title VII retaliation claim.
The allegations got smaller when the testimony got specific
The sexual-harassment claim included an equipment case decorated with explicit photographs, p*nis-shaped candy, lewd gestures, and conversations about s*x workers and Amsterdam s*x shows. But the plaintiff testified that the decorated case and candy-related conduct occurred on one person’s birthday, the gestures and remarks were not directed at her, and they did not affect her work.
The racial-harassment claim encountered a similar problem. The plaintiff had not personally heard anyone use a racial slur. Other assertions lacked context, comparative treatment, or evidence connecting allegedly demeaning conduct to race. Even together, the incidents were not sufficiently severe or pervasive.
Workplace injuries did not automatically become ADA disabilities
The plaintiff also relied on bruising and swelling after a clothing rack allegedly rolled over her foot, two broken acrylic nails, and a possible allergic reaction. She continued working, sought no later care for the foot, and was unsure whether she had experienced an allergic reaction.
The court did not minimize her discomfort. It found that the evidence did not show an impairment sufficiently limiting a major life activity, so the disability-discrimination, accommodation, and ADA-retaliation claims failed.
Her FLSA retaliation claim failed for a different reason. Her complaints concerned schedules and breaks during foreign tour work, but the FLSA’s wage-and-hour protections do not cover work performed in a foreign workplace. That meant she had not complained about conduct protected by the statute.
Four lessons from the evidence backstage
The company won because the developed record did not support essential elements of the claims. Four practical lessons can help employers reduce risk.
Short assignments can create long legal exposure
The plaintiff worked on the tour for less than three weeks, yet seven federal claims were still being litigated more than three years later. Employers using touring, seasonal, or project-based workers need reporting channels and management controls that operate from the first day.
Workplace misconduct can demand action without creating liability
The court described some alleged conduct as “inappropriate and unprofessional” while concluding that it did not violate Title VII. Company policy should address behavior before it becomes severe or pervasive enough to support a federal harassment claim.
The reason for an employment decision needs factual support
Several challenged workplace decisions lacked evidence connecting them to race or sex, including comparative evidence that workers outside the protected group received different treatment. Employers should be able to identify the operational reason for a disputed decision and show that the same reasoning is applied consistently.
Overseas work changes the employment-law analysis
The FLSA claim failed because the work occurred outside the United States, but wage-and-hour coverage is only one consideration. Discrimination, accommodation, leave, immigration, tax, and local employment laws may apply differently abroad. Employers should review each assignment individually rather than assume every domestic rule either travels with the employee or disappears at the border.
Seven federal claims remained when the company moved for summary judgment. Once the court matched each one to the actual evidence, none reached a jury.