What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
“Lizzo’s sexual harassment lawsuit” can refer to two different cases. The former dancers’ state-court lawsuit is the one behind the “moves forward” headline; a secondary case tracker reported that harassment and hostile-work-environment claims remained pending after some claims were dismissed. A separate federal lawsuit by former tour wardrobe worker Asha Daniels had a different outcome: on September 1, 2026, The New York Times reported that the remaining claims against Lizzo’s touring company were dismissed. That ruling did not decide the dancers’ case.
Which lawsuit moved forward?
The headline refers to the action brought by former backup dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams, and Noelle Rodriguez against Lizzo, her touring company, and dance-team captain Shirlene Quigley. According to Celebrity Dockets, some claims in that case were dismissed while harassment and hostile-work-environment claims remained pending. This is secondary-source reporting, not a status confirmed here against the court docket; it does not establish the case’s current trial or appeal status. Celebrity Dockets’ case tracker
“Moves forward” describes a procedural stage, not a finding that the allegations are true. A claim may survive dismissal while a court has not decided the underlying facts.
How is Asha Daniels’s case different?
Daniels, a former wardrobe worker on Lizzo’s 2023 tour, brought a separate federal case. Her complaint alleges that she began working on the tour in February 2023 and describes workplace conduct including a backstage manager sharing a sexually explicit image in a group chat, which management allegedly treated humorously. These are allegations in a complaint, not established findings. Daniels complaint and case summary
#1 Best Overall
The case involved claims including Title VII, disability, retaliation, and wage-related claims. The New York Times reported on September 1, 2026, that a judge granted summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims against Big Grrrl Big Touring. The report attributes to U.S. District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha the view that the alleged conduct fell outside Title VII’s protection under the Supreme Court’s “ordinary tribulations of the workplace” standard. This was an outcome in Daniels’s federal case, not a ruling in the dancers’ lawsuit. The New York Times report
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to read the two outcomes
| Case | Plaintiff and role | Reported status | Source and qualification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Former dancers’ state-court action | Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams, and Noelle Rodriguez, former backup dancers | Harassment and hostile-work-environment claims were reported as pending after some claims were dismissed. | Celebrity Dockets, a secondary tracker; current docket status not confirmed. Case tracker |
| Asha Daniels’s federal case | Asha Daniels, former wardrobe worker on the 2023 tour | The New York Times reported that remaining claims against Big Grrrl Big Touring were dismissed on summary judgment on September 1, 2026. | Separate case and separate ruling; does not resolve the dancers’ claims. The New York Times |
A complaint records what a plaintiff alleges; a court ruling records what the court decided at a particular procedural stage. Neither should be treated as a blanket factual verdict about every allegation across both cases.
Quick Recap
Rank #2
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
