Pop star Lizzo has filed an appeal to dismiss a high-profile sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit brought by former backup dancers, claiming the suit infringes upon her constitutional rights to free speech and artistic expression.

In a legal brief submitted last month, attorneys representing Lizzo, whose real name is Melissa Jefferson, argued that the 2023 lawsuit is "an attack on Lizzo’s First Amendment right to perform her music and advocate for body positivity." The filing seeks to overturn a ruling by Judge Mark H. Epstein, who previously dismissed some claims but allowed significant aspects of the lawsuit to proceed toward a jury trial.

The dancers, Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams, and Noelle Rodriguez, originally alleged that Lizzo and her production company, Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc., fostered a hostile workplace through sexual harassment and discrimination based on religion, race, and disability. Central to the claims is an incident at Amsterdam’s Bananenbar, where the dancers said Lizzo pressured them to interact with nude performers during a sexually explicit show.

Lizzo’s defense, led by prominent attorney Marty Singer, counters that such events were integral to her artistic vision and team-building process. "There’s no disagreement that Lizzo held these outings as a necessary part of her creative process," Singer wrote. He emphasized that attendance at the event was voluntary and argued that creative expression, even if provocative or controversial, is protected by California’s anti-SLAPP statute, designed to swiftly terminate lawsuits perceived as threats to free speech.

While Judge Epstein previously dismissed headline-making allegations of weight-shaming discrimination, he permitted other accusations, including those tied to the Amsterdam outing, to advance. Epstein noted the complexity, stating, "It is dangerous for the court to weigh in, ham-fisted, into constitutionally protected activity. But it is equally dangerous to turn a blind eye to allegations of discrimination or other forms of misconduct merely because they take place in a speech-related environment."

In their appeal, Lizzo’s attorneys argue that judicial intervention into creative processes poses serious risks. They cite precedents acknowledging that artistic work can include "bizarre and potentially offensive ideas" and assert that judges should not scrutinize the validity of artistic decisions.

Responding to Lizzo’s appeal, Ron Zambrano, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, reaffirmed his clients' claims and expressed confidence in proving their allegations in court. "Lizzo has been trying and failing repeatedly to get this case dismissed because she does not want to face a jury of her peers," Zambrano stated.

Both sides will present their arguments to an appellate court in the coming months. Should Lizzo succeed, the lawsuit will be dismissed outright; otherwise, the case will proceed to trial in Epstein's courtroom.