Connect with us

Entertainment

Lizzo denies sexual harassment allegations from ex-dancers: 'I did nothing wrong'

Published

on

Lizzo denies sexual harassment allegations from ex-dancers: 'I did nothing wrong'

Lizzo is getting frank about how a landmark year in her career has turned into one of its most fraught.

The “About Damn Time” hitmaker was fresh off of her first arena run last summer when three of her former touring dancers filed a sweeping harassment lawsuit against her, her touring company and her dance captain. A month later, fashion designer Asha Daniels, who worked on costumes for Lizzo’s tour dancers, filed a harassment and discrimination lawsuit of her own.

“I was literally living the dream,” Lizzo said Thursday on the “Baby, This is Keke Palmer” podcast — her first interview since the lawsuit news broke. Days later, she was “blindsided” by a slew of allegations she said “came literally out of nowhere.”

The four-time Grammy winner said she was “very hurt” because the dancers who filed the suit “were people that I gave opportunities to,” whom she “liked” and “respected.”

Lizzo said her legal team plans to fight until all claims against her are dismissed.

Advertisement

In August 2023, dancers Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez filed a complaint alleging they were the victims of a hostile work environment and several forms of harassment while employed by Lizzo.

“It’s really hard to believe that somebody that you almost think could do no wrong, did so much wrong,” Williams previously told The Times. “I felt the need to even come forward publicly because this is not only her that does things like this. This is normalized in the entertainment industry in general.”

Among the dancers’ allegations in the ongoing case is that the Yitty founder “pressured Plaintiffs and all her employees to attend outings where nudity and sexuality were a focal point,” according to their complaint. Citing specific anecdotes from burlesque club Crazy Horse Paris and Bananenbar Amsterdam, which calls itself an “erotic bar,” the dancers recalled going along with Lizzo’s invitations to engage with nude club dancers out of fear of losing their jobs.

Lizzo said Thursday that she had merely been enjoying nights out with her team members, with whom she typically maintains friendly relationships. Attending the outings wasn’t “mandatory,” she said, and everything that occurred at them was “consensual.”

“We met the dancers, we laughed, we talked,” she told Palmer about the night at Crazy Horse Paris. “There’s photos and videos of the three girls who are the ex-dancers, who are suing me, in a video with them smiling, having a great time. And we all went back to our hotels. And that is one of the claims of sexual harassment.”

Advertisement

Lizzo said she used to struggle to understand why her music peers kept such distance from their crew, “but now I see why.”

“I think this experience taught me how to set those kinds of boundaries, not just to protect them, but to protect myself,” she said.

As for Davis’ claim that Lizzo body-shamed her and implied that her weight gain was a sign of her being “less committed” to her work, the “Truth Hurts” singer told Palmer, “Those words never came out of my mouth.”

“More things that just never happened,” according to Lizzo, include the singer “cracking her knuckles, balling her fists” and launching perceived threats after Rodriguez announced her resignation, as the dancer alleged in the lawsuit.

“This is the part of fame that you unknowingly sign up for,” Lizzo said. “People now will just believe anything bad about you.”

Advertisement

The dancers’ attorney Ron Zambrano addressed Lizzo’s comments Thursday in a statement.

“There is an utter lack of awareness by Lizzo failing to see how these young women on her team who are just starting their careers would feel pressured to accept an invitation from their global celebrity boss who rarely hangs out with them,” Zambrano said.

“There is a power dynamic in the boss-employee context that Lizzo utterly fails to appreciate,” he continued. “We stand by the claims in the lawsuit and are prepared to prove everything in court with Lizzo on the stand under oath before a jury of her peers, not spouting nonsense and lies rationalizing a failure to take accountability on a podcast.”

Separately, Zambrano corrected Lizzo’s statement on the podcast that Daniels’ separate suit had been “dismissed.”

A federal judge earlier this month ruled that Daniels could not sue Lizzo as an individual, but the singer’s touring company remains a defendant in the case, BBC reported. The judge also dropped several claims pertaining to Daniels’ work for Lizzo in Europe, where U.S. labor laws do not apply.

Advertisement

However, “The lawsuit is still very active and has not been dismissed,” Zambrano said in a statement published by People. “The ruling was not for lack of evidence, but rather on procedural jurisdictional grounds. It by no means absolves Lizzo of the egregious claims that occurred on her watch.”

A hearing in the dancers’ case is scheduled for Jan. 14.

Meanwhile, Lizzo told Palmer she remains someone who uplifts Black women and takes accountability when she makes mistakes.

“I still believe women. I still believe victims. Because this happened to me is not going to change that,” she said. “But people should not be able to just say anything about somebody and put it in the media and ask for money.”

The singer added that she’s been processing the events of the past year as she writes her new album, which has yet to be formally announced. “I’m putting everything in the art. I always have.”

Advertisement

Times staff writers Alexandra Del Rosario, August Brown and Stacy Perman and former Times staff writer Carlos De Loera contributed to this report.

Movie Reviews

1986 Movie Reviews – Black Moon Rising | The Nerdy

Published

on

1986 Movie Reviews – Black Moon Rising | The Nerdy
by Sean P. Aune | January 10, 2026January 10, 2026 10:30 am EST

Welcome to an exciting year-long project here at The Nerdy. 1986 was an exciting year for films giving us a lot of films that would go on to be beloved favorites and cult classics. It was also the start to a major shift in cultural and societal norms, and some of those still reverberate to this day.

We’re going to pick and choose which movies we hit, but right now the list stands at nearly four dozen.

Yes, we’re insane, but 1986 was that great of a year for film.

The articles will come out – in most cases – on the same day the films hit theaters in 1986 so that it is their true 40th anniversary. All films are also watched again for the purposes of these reviews and are not being done from memory. In some cases, it truly will be the first time we’ve seen them.

Advertisement

This time around, it’s Jan. 10, 1986, and we’re off to see Black Moon Rising.

Black Moon Rising

What was the obsession in the 1980s with super vehicles?

Sam Quint (Tommy Lee Jones) is hired to steal a computer tape with evidence against a company on it. While being pursued, he tucks it in the parachute of a prototype vehicle called the Black Moon. While trying to retrieve it, the car is stolen by Nina (Linda Hamilton), a car thief working for a car theft ring. Both of them want out of their lives, and it looks like the Black Moon could be their ticket out.

Blue Thunder in the movies, Airwolf and Knight Rider on TV, the 1980s loved an impractical ‘super’ vehicle. In this case, the car plays a very minor role up until the final action set piece, and the story is far more about the characters and their motivations.

Advertisement

The movie is silly as you would expect it to be, but it is never a bad watch. It’s just not anything particularly memorable.

1986 Movie Reviews will continue on Jan. 17, 2026, with The Adventures of the American Rabbit, The Adventures of Mark Twain, The Clan of the Cave Bear, Iron Eagle, The Longshot, and Troll.


Continue Reading

Entertainment

Commentary: California made them rich. Now billionaires flee when the state asks for a little something back.

Published

on

Commentary: California made them rich. Now billionaires flee when the state asks for a little something back.

California helped make them the rich. Now a small proposed tax is spooking them out of the state.

California helped make them among the richest people in the world. Now they’re fleeing because California wants a little something back.

The proposed California Billionaire Tax Act has plutocrats saying they are considering deserting the Golden State for fear they’ll have to pay a one-time, 5% tax, on top of the other taxes they barely pay in comparison to the rest of us. Think of it as the Dust Bowl migration in reverse, with The Monied headed East to grow their fortunes.

The measure would apply to billionaires residing in California as of Jan. 1, 2026, meaning that 2025 was a big moving year month among the 200 wealthiest California households subject to the tax.

The recently departed reportedly include In-n-Out Burger owner and heiress Lynsi Snyder, PayPal co-founder and conservative donor Peter Thiel, Venture Capitalist David Sacks, co-founder of Craft Ventures, and Google co-founder Larry Page, who recently purchased $173 million worth of waterfront property in Miami’s Coconut Grove. Thank goodness he landed on his feet in these tough times.

Advertisement

The principal sponsor behind the Billionaire Tax Act is the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), which contends that the tax could raise a $100 billion to offset severe federal cutbacks to California’s public education, food assistance and Medicaid programs.

The initiative is designed to offset some of the tax breaks that billionaires received from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act recently passed by the Republican-dominated Congress and signed by President Trump.

According to my colleague Michael Hiltzik, the bill “will funnel as much as $1 trillion in tax benefits to the wealthy over the next decade, while blowing a hole in state and local budgets for healthcare and other needs.”

The drafters of the Billionaire Tax Act still have to gather around 875,000 signatures from registered voters by June 24 for the measure to qualify on November’s ballot. But given the public ire toward the growing wealth of the 1%, and the affordability crisis engulfing much of the rest of the nation, it has a fair chance of making it onto the ballot.

If the tax should be voted into law, what would it mean for those poor tycoons who failed to pack up the Lamborghinis in time? For Thiel, whose net worth is around $27.5 billion, it would be around $1.2 billion, should he choose to stay, and he’d have up to five years to pay it.

Advertisement

Yes, it’s a lot … if you’re not a billionaire. It’s doubtful any of the potentially affected affluents would feel the pinch, but it could make a world of difference for kids depending on free school lunches, or folks who need medical care but can’t afford it because they’ve been squeezed by a system that places much of the tax burden on them.

According to the California Budget & Policy Center, the bottom fifth of California’s non-elderly families, with an average annual income of $13,900, spend an estimated 10.5% of their incomes on state and local taxes. In comparison, the wealthiest 1% of families, with an average annual income of $2.0 million, spend an estimated 8.7% of their incomes on state and local taxes.

“It’s a matter of values,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) posted on X. “We believe billionaires can pay a modest wealth tax so working-class Californians have Medicaid.”

Many have argued losing all that wealth to other states will hurt California in the long run.

Even Gov. Gavin Newsom has argued against the measure, citing that the wealthy can relocate anywhere else to evade the tax. During the New York Times DealBook Summit last month, Newsom said, “You can’t isolate yourself from the 49 others. We’re in a competitive environment.”

Advertisement

He has a point, as do others who contend that the proposed tax may hurt California rather then help.

Sacks signaled he was leaving California by posting an image of the Texas flag on Dec. 31 on X and writing: “God bless Texas.” He followed with a post that read, “As a response to socialism, Miami will replace NYC as the finance capital and Austin will replace SF as the tech capital.”

Arguments aside, it’s disturbing to think that some of the richest people in the nation would rather pick up and move than put a small fraction of their vast California-made — or in the case of the burger chain, inherited — fortunes toward helping others who need a financial boost.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Song Sung Blue’ movie review: Hugh Jackman and Kate Hudson sing their hearts out in a lovely musical biopic

Published

on

‘Song Sung Blue’ movie review: Hugh Jackman and Kate Hudson sing their hearts out in a lovely musical biopic

A still from ‘Song Sung Blue’.
| Photo Credit: Focus Features/YouTube

There is something unputdownable about Mike Sardina (Hugh Jackman) from the first moment one sees him at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting celebrating his 20th sober birthday. He encourages the group to sing the famous Neil Diamond number, ‘Song Sung Blue,’ with him, and we are carried along on a wave of his enthusiasm.

Song Sung Blue (English)

Director: Craig Brewer

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Kate Hudson, Michael Imperioli, Ella Anderson, Mustafa Shakir, Fisher Stevens, Jim Belushi

Runtime: 132 minutes

Advertisement

Storyline: Mike and Claire find and rescue each other from the slings and arrows of mediocrity when they form a Neil Diamond tribute band

We learn that Mike is a music impersonator who refuses to come on stage as anyone but himself, Lightning, at the Wisconsin State Fair. At the fair, he meets Claire (Kate Hudson), who is performing as Patsy Cline. Sparks fly between the two, and Claire suggests Mike perform a Neil Diamond tribute.

Claire and Mike start a relationship and a Neil Diamond tribute band, called Lightning and Thunder. They marry and after some initial hesitation, Claire’s children from her first marriage, Rachel (Ella Anderson) and Dayna (Hudson Hensley), and Mike’s daughter from an earlier marriage, Angelina (King Princess), become friends. 

Members from Mike’s old band join the group, including Mark Shurilla (Michael Imperioli), a Buddy Holly impersonator and Sex Machine (Mustafa Shakir), who sings as James Brown. His dentist/manager, Dave Watson (Fisher Stevens), believes in him, even fixing his tooth with a little lightning bolt!

The tribute band meets with success, including opening for Pearl Jam, with the front man for the grunge band, Eddie Vedder (John Beckwith), joining Lightning and Thunder for a rendition of ‘Forever in Blue Jeans’ at the 1995 Pearl Jam concert in Milwaukee.

There is heartbreak, anger, addiction, and the rise again before the final tragedy. Song Sung Blue, based on Greg Kohs’ eponymous documentary, is a gentle look into a musician’s life. When Mike says, “I’m not a songwriter. I’m not a sex symbol. But I am an entertainer,” he shows that dreams do not have to die. Mike and Claire reveal that even if you do not conquer the world like a rock god, you can achieve success doing what makes you happy.

Advertisement

ALSO READ: ‘Run Away’ series review: Perfect pulp to kick off the New Year

Song Sung Blue is a validation for all the regular folk with modest dreams, but dreams nevertheless. As the poet said, “there’s no success like failure, and failure’s no success at all.” Hudson and Jackman power through the songs and tears like champs, leaving us laughing, tapping our feet, and wiping away the errant tears all at once.

The period detail is spot on (never mind the distracting wigs). The chance to hear a generous catalogue of Diamond’s music in arena-quality sound is not to be missed, in a movie that offers a satisfying catharsis. Music is most definitely the food of love, so may we all please have a second and third helping?

Song Sung Blue is currently running in theatres 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending