Asha Daniels' Lawsuit

Neama Rahmani (State Bar No.
223819)
1 efilings@westcoasttriallawyers.com
2 Ronald L. Zambrano (State Bar No. 255613)
ron@westcoasttriallawyers.com
3 WEST COAST EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, APLC
1147 South Hope Street
4 Los Angeles, California 90015
Telephone: (213) 927-3700
5
Facsimile: (213) 927-3701
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7 ASHA DANIELS
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
11
ASHA DANIELS, an Individual; CASE NO.:
12
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
13
Plaintiff, (1) FEHA HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT : SEXUAL
14 HARASSMENT;
v.
15 (2) FEHA FAILURE TO PREVENT AND/OR REMEDY
BIG GRRRL BIG TOURING, INC, a HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SEXUAL
16 Delaware Corporation; MELISSA HARASSMENT;
17 JEFFERSON (aka “LIZZO”), as an (3) FEHA RACIAL HARASSMENT;

Individual; AMANDA NOMURA, as an
18 Individual, and DOES 1 through 10, (4) FEHA DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION;
inclusive,
19 (5) FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
20 Defendants. (6) FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN

VIOLATION OF FEHA;
21
(7) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF FEHA;
22
(8) RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§
23 1102.5 AND 6310; AND
24 (9) ASSAULT.
25
26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

27
28
1
1 Plaintiff, ASHA DANIELS (hereinafter referred to as, “DANIELS” or “Plaintiff”), an
2 Individual, in her complaint against Defendants, BIG GRRRL BIG TOURING, INC., a Delaware
3 Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, “BGBT” or “Defendant”), MELISSA JEFFERSON
4 (professionally known and hereinafter referred to as, “LIZZO” or “Defendant”), an Individual,
5 AMANDA NOMURA (hereinafter referred to as, “NOMURA” or “Defendant), and CARLINA
6 GUGLIOTTA (hereinafter referred to as, “GUGLIOTTA”), (collectively referred to as
7 “Defendants”), respectfully alleges, avers, and complains as follows:
9 INTRODUCTION
10
11 1. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff, DANIES, pursuant to California statutory,
12 decision, and regulatory laws. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants, BGBT and LIZZO
13 at all times herein mentioned. Defendant NOMURA was the supervising agent for BGBT
14 and LIZZO at all times herein mentioned.
15
16 2. Plaintiff alleged that California statutory, decisional, and regulatory laws prohibit the
17 conduct by Defendants herein alleged, and therefore Plaintiff has an entitlement to monetary
18 relief on the basis that Defendants violated such statutes, decisional law, and regulations.
19
20 JURISIDICTION AND VENUE
21
22 3. Jurisdiction is proper in this court by virtue of the California statutes, decisional law, and
23 regulations, and the local rules under the Los Angeles County Superior Court Rules.
24
25 4. Venue in this Court is proper in that Defendant LIZZO is a resident of the City of Los
26 Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
27 //
28 //
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2
1 5. Venue is this Court is also proper in that Defendant NOMURA is a resident of the City of
2 Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
4 PARTIES
6 6. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff DANIELS is and has been a resident of the City of
7 New York, State of New York.
9 7. Defendant BGBT is and at all times herein mentioned has been a Delaware Corporation,
10 with the capacity to sue and to be sued, and doing business, with a principal place of business
11 located at 1013 Centre Road, Suite 403s, Wilmington, Delaware 19805.
12
13 8. Defendant LIZZO is and at all times herein mentioned has been an individual residing in
14 Los Angeles County, California with the capacity to sue and to be sued.
15
16 9. Defendant NOMURA is and at all times herein mentioned has been an individual residing
17 in Los Angeles County, California with the capacity to sue and to be sued.
18
19 10. Defendant GUGLIOTA is and at all times herein mentioned has been an individual residing
20 in Los Angeles County, California with the capacity to sue and to be sued.
21
22 11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants herein
23 were at all times the agent, employee, or representative of each remaining Defendant and
24 were at all times herein acting within and outside the scope and purpose of said agency and
25 employment. Plaintiff further alleges that as to each Defendant, whether named, or referred
26 to as a fictitious name, said Defendants supervised, ratified, controlled, acquiesced in,
27 adopted, directed, substantially participated in, and/or approved the acts, errors, or
28 omissions, of each remaining Defendant.

3
1 12. The true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 10,
2 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, partnership, association, or otherwise, are
3 unknown to Plaintiff who therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff
4 will request leave of court to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities
5 at such time as they are ascertained.
7 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
9 13. In or about September 2022, Plaintiff designed custom pieces for the dancers on LIZZO’s
10 tour.
11
12 14. In or about January of 2023, Defendant NOMURA contacted Plaintiff and requested that
13 Plaintiff join LIZZO’s tour. NOMURA was LIZZO’s Wardrobe Manager and was
14 Plaintiff’s primary point of contact representing LIZZO’s management team. Since Plaintiff
15 designed custom pieces for the tour, NOMURA reasoned Plaintiff would be the best
16 individual to assure the dancers’ clothing is altered and repaired correctly during the tour.
17 Plaintiff rearranged her schedule, canceling her fashion show and missing out on other work
18 opportunities to accept joining LIZZO’s tour as a favor to NOMURA.
19
20 15. Plaintiff was looking forward to working with LIZZO and her team because of the values
21 LIZZO portrays in public, i.e., a healthy, diverse environment with virtues of respect and
22 empowerment of women. Unfortunately, the opposite turned out to be true. Plaintiff
23 believes the following experiences of degradation, forced physical labor, denial of medical
24 care, sexual harassment, and racial harassment were allowed to take place by LIZZO’s
25 management without consequence because she is a Black woman.
26 //
27 //
28 //

4
1 16. On or about February 14, 2023, Plaintiff began working on LIZZO’s tour. Plaintiff reported
2 to NOMURA, who was Plaintiff’s supervisor for the entirety of her employment with
3 LIZZO’s tour.
5 17. The disappointing reality of working on LIZZO’s tour sunk in at the get-go. Plaintiff often
6 worked seven (7) days a week, from approximately 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., and was
7 frequently denied breaks by NOMURA. Plaintiff’s movement and communication with
8 others were constantly monitored and policed by NOMURA. Even during the rare,
9 designated days off, Plaintiff was pressured to always work while she was on the tour.
10 Plaintiff is informed and believes this directive came from LIZZO’s management.
11
12 18. Adding to the uncomfortable environment of LIZZO’s tour, Plaintiff was specifically
13 instructed to never interact with LIZZO herself because LIZZO would be jealous. Plaintiff
14 was instructed to “tone it down” if she was ever to interact with LIZZO - specifically
15 referencing not to dress attractively in front of LIZZO. NOMURA shared that one time
16 LIZZO was bothered NOMURA was seen by LIZZO’s boyfriend, and became very upset
17 and jealous towards NOMURA. NOMURA explained that LIZZO would get upset the
18 same way with Plaintiff if Plaintiff interacted with LIZZO and/or LIZZO’s boyfriend.
19
20 19. Almost immediately, Plaintiff was introduced to the culture of racism and bullying on
21 LIZZO’s tour. Plaintiff witnessed LIZZO’s approximately ten (10) background dancers
22 (including Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez) being forced to change
23 in and out of their clothing in small, tight, changing areas during all the shows with little to
24 no privacy whatsoever. Members of LIZZO’s stage crew, primarily white males, would
25 lewdly gawk, sneer, and giggle while watching the dancers rush through their outfit-
26 changes.
27 //
28 //

5
1 20. Plaintiff expressed concern to NOMURA about utter lack of privacy and necessary
2 accommodations and tools Black female performers would need on tour. However,
3 NOMURA merely laughed at the dancers’ poor accommodations, and “advised” Plaintiff
4 not to alert anyone else about the issue or try to fix the issue. Plaintiff would later learn
5 details that led her to believe this was a set up to humiliate, degrade, alienate, and, in some
6 cases, fire, the Black female performers.
8 21. Often, the background dancers would directly inform Plaintiff when they would rip their
9 fishnet stockings or other dance gear while dancing. The first time this happened, Plaintiff
10 provided the dancer with an additional pair of stockings since there was a fully stocked
11 inventory of fishnet stockings. However, Plaintiff was scolded by LIZZO’s management for
12 giving the dancer additional stockings and instructed her not to do so again. Plaintiff was
13 also specifically instructed to not give certain dancers panties, mirrors, or items they would
14 need and ask for, despite those items being stocked.
15
16 22. Additionally, throughout the entirety of her employment, Plaintiff was forced to hear racist
17 and fatphobic comments from NOMURA. Plaintiff witnessed NOMURA mock both LIZZO
18 & LIZZO’s background dancers on multiple occasions. NOMURA would imitate the
19 dancers and LIZZO by doing an offensive stereotypical impression of a Black woman.
20 NOMURA would also refer to Black women on the tour as “dumb,” “useless,” and “fat”.
21
22 23. Plaintiff, a Black woman, was offended by NOMURA’s disgusting comments. Plaintiff told
23 NOMURA directly her comments and imitations were offensive, especially in a work
24 setting. NOMURA ignored Plaintiff’s concerns much like Plaintiff’s prior concerns of the
25 lack of privacy and accommodations for the dancers.
26
27 24. In or around mid-February of 2023, Plaintiff and NOMURA were transporting a heavy rack
28 of clothing, when NOMURA rolled the rack over Plaintiff’s foot. Plaintiff stopped and

6
1 informed NOMURA she needed to sit down, as her foot was in serious pain. Shockingly,
2 NOMURA proceeded to shove Plaintiff into the rack of clothing, while asserting Plaintiff
3 should not make excuses about her foot and must help NOMURA transport the clothing.
5 25. Due to being shoved, Plaintiff lost her balance and rolled her ankle. The following day,
6 Plaintiff came to work in “croc” shoes which minimized the pain. When NOMURA noticed
7 the Plaintiff’s orthopedic shoes, she demanded Plaintiff to change into tennis shoes. Plaintiff
8 explained her ankle was swollen and injured after the rack incident, and that it was painful
9 to walk in tennis shoes. However, NOMURA forced Plaintiff to wear the painful tennis
10 shoes so that she could move heavy cases while injured.
11
12 26. Before agreeing to the tour, Plaintiff was explicitly promised that she would not have to
13 perform physically demanding duties. This made the demand to change shoes unreasonable
14 and caused unnecessary, compounded injury to Plaintiff. Not only was Plaintiff denied
15 medical treatment (on this occasion and others) but was also forced to be on her feet the
16 majority of the day and denied any rest – even after rolling her ankle. Despite LIZZO’s
17 team knowing of the injury, Plaintiff was forced to sleep in a top bunk without a ladder,
18 even after requesting an accommodation be made. This caused her to reinjure her ankle
19 constantly. In addition, while being forced to help with loading heavy cases, Plaintiff broke
20 2 acrylic nails past the nail bed resulting in open, bleeding wounds and was expected to
21 continue with physical labor without medical treatment.
22
23 27. On several occasions, NOMURA made statements and/or took physical actions to threaten
24 Plaintiff and the entire crew: (1) she threatened Plaintiff and others that she would “kill a
25 bitch” and “stab a bitch” when she could not find her medication. (2) she shoved a crew
26 member in retaliation for revealing she was threatening to quit. (3) NOMURA snatched food
27 out of a local worker’s hand for merely attempting to take an assigned break. (4) she
28 expressed that she would “kill a bitch if it came down to it” if anyone threatened her job.

7
1 LIZZO’s Management was well aware of this pattern of behavior. Defendant GUGLIOTTA,
2 LIZZO’s Tour Manager, even requested Plaintiff to record NOMURA without her
3 knowledge, which Plaintiff did not do as it was both unethical and possibly unlawful.
5 28. Compounding the disillusionment with LIZZO’s tour, Plaintiff also endured sexual
6 harassment by LIZZO’s team. Specifically, there was a group chat of over 30+ people from
7 the BGBT team, which included LIZZO tour management and Plaintiff. In the group
8 message, a backstage manager sent a photo graphically depicting male genitalia. No one
9 from LIZZO’s management team addressed this graphic sexual imagery in the workplace
10 appropriately. Instead, LIZZO’s management found the image to be comical, further
11 encouraging an unsafe, sexually charged workplace culture.
12
13 29. As another example of this, when the tour got to Amsterdam, Plaintiff witnessed NOMURA,
14 crew, and LIZZO’s management openly discussing hiring sex workers for lewd sex acts,
15 attending sex shows, and buying hard drugs. Plaintiff felt pressured to join such activities
16 and found a way to secure one of her few days off to escape.
17
18 30. Enough was enough. Despite being instructed not to speak with management, Plaintiff
19 bravely decided to come forward. Later in the month of February 2023, Plaintiff informed
20 GUGLIOTTA of the widespread racial and sexual harassment taking place on the tour.
21 Specifically, Plaintiff told GUGLIOTTA that the Black dancers were being mocked,
22 objectified, and denied accommodations by the stage crew and NOMURA. Plaintiff also
23 told GUGLIOTTA that she and her local teams were victims of NOMURA’s verbal and
24 physical abuse, racist comments, bullying, and withholding of accommodations. Plaintiff
25 explained she believes NOMURA’s behavior was racially motivated, and stated, “It’s not
26 lost on me that I’m one of the only Black women working behind the scenes and I feel like
27 [NOMURA] is treating me like I’m a slave.”
28 //

8
1 31. Plaintiff expected Gugliotta to inform LIZZO of what was happening on LIZZO’s team
2 because she believed LIZZO would not tolerate racist bullying towards her dancers or the
3 few Black women that worked behind the scenes on her tour. Women who, after all, look
4 just like LIZZO. Plaintiff is informed and believes GUGLIOTTA did, in fact, relay to
5 LIZZO Plaintiff’s reports of racism and mistreatment towards herself and the dancers.
6 GUGLIOTTA reassured Plaintiff that bullying would not be tolerated.
8 32. The toxic work environment continued without change. LIZZO’s team ultimately fired
9 Plaintiff without notice or reason. Plaintiff was later informed by GUGLIOTTA that
10 “everyone knows [NOMURA] is crazy.” GUGLIOTTA apologized to Plaintiff several times
11 and acknowledged that although management was aware of NOMURA’s behavior, she
12 would be too hard to replace and NOMURA “wanted [Plaintiff] gone” for speaking up.
13 Throughout the tour, Plaintiff received positive feedback for her designs and other work
14 from performers, local crews, Gugliotta, and even NOMURA herself.
15
16 33. In fact, The Big Grrls and tour musicians requested a meeting with management to dispute
17 Plaintiff’s firing and their request was denied. Plaintiff was abruptly fired before her contract
18 was set to end and put on a March 6, 2023 flight home.
19
20 34. Earlier on the day Plaintiff was fired, she suffered an allergic reaction that she notified both
21 NOMURA and LIZZO's management about. Plaintiff was denied medical care, was yelled
22 at for taking time to even look for medicine, and was pressured by NOMURA to keep
23 working or be sent home. Despite the industry standard to have a medical team available at
24 least by phone, no medical attention was ever provided.
25
26 35. Audaciously, LIZZO’s Management has since requested further design work from Plaintiff.
27 //
28 //

9
1 36. Due to the racist and sexualized work environment, and also the unreasonable physical
2 requirements of the Plaintiff, she suffered constant anxiety and panic attacks during the tour
3 from the racist and sexualized environments; she continues to suffer ongoing anxiety and
4 PTSD after the tour; and she suffers from migraines and migraine-induced eye twitch and
5 ocular distortions, brain fog, and fatigue.
7 37. Prior to filing this Complaint, Plaintiff fulfilled any legal requirement or exhausted any
8 administrative remedy imposed on her by having filed the substance of the claims alleged
9 herein with the California Civil Rights Department and has received a Right to Sue Letter,
10 dated September 18, 2023. Therefore, Plaintiff has substantially complied with all
11 requirements for the filing of this Complaint and has timely exhausted her administrative
12 remedies.
13
14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
15 (FEHA Hostile Work Environment – Sexual Harassment)
16 (Plaintiff Against All Defendants)
17
18 38. Plaintiff incorporates all paragraphs above as though fully set forth herein.
19
20 39. The conduct of Defendants LIZZO, BGBT, GUGLIOTTA and NORMURA created a
21 hostile work environment for Plaintiff, making the conditions of their employment
22 intolerable in direct contravention of various statutes and state law decisions, including but
23 not limited to California Government Code §12940(h) and (j). Plaintiff was subjected to a
24 hostile work environment due to, including but not limited to, Defendants’ repeated
25 exposure of Plaintiff to nudity in their employee group message.
26
27 40. Such harassment was so severe or pervasive that it altered the terms and conditions of
28 Plaintiff’s employment, creating a hostile, abusive work environment and making Plaintiff’s

10
1 working conditions intolerable. Said harassment was sufficiently extreme and pervasive to
2 amount to a change in the terms and conditions of’ Plaintiff’s employment.
4 41. On or about February 14, 2023, Plaintiff began working on LIZZO’s tour.
6 42. The disappointing reality of working on LIZZO’s tour sunk in at the get-go. Plaintiff was
7 specifically instructed to never interact with LIZZO herself because LIZZO would be
8 jealous. Plaintiff was instructed to “tone it down” if she was ever to interact with LIZZO -
9 specifically referencing not to dress attractively in front of LIZZO. NOMURA shared that
10 one time LIZZO was bothered NOMURA was seen by LIZZO’s boyfriend, and became
11 very upset and jealous towards NOMURA. NOMURA explained that LIZZO would get
12 upset the same way with Plaintiff if Plaintiff interacted with LIZZO and/or LIZZO’s
13 boyfriend.
14
15 43. Compounding the disillusionment with LIZZO’s tour, Plaintiff endured sexual harassment
16 by LIZZO’s team. Specifically, there was a group chat of over 30+ people from the BGBT
17 team, which included LIZZO tour management and Plaintiff. In the group message, a
18 backstage manager sent a photo graphically depicting male genitalia. No one from LIZZO’s
19 management team addressed this graphic sexual imagery in the workplace appropriately.
20 Instead, LIZZO’s management found the image to be comical, further encouraging an
21 unsafe, sexually charged workplace culture.
22
27 //
28 //

11
1 45. Despite being instructed to not speak with management, Plaintiff bravely decided to come
2 forward. Later in the month of February 2023, Plaintiff informed Gugliotta of the
3 widespread racial and sexual harassment taking place on the tour. Specifically, Plaintiff told
4 Gugliotta that the Black dancers were being mocked, objectified, and denied
5 accommodations by the stage crew and NOMURA. Plaintiff also told Gugliotta that she and
6 her local teams were victims of NOMURA’s verbal and physical abuse, racist comments,
7 bullying, and withholding of accommodations.
9 46. Plaintiff is informed and believes Gugliotta did, in fact, relay to LIZZO Plaintiff’s reports
10 of racism and mistreatment towards herself and the dancers. Gugliotta reassured Plaintiff
11 that bullying would not be tolerated.
12
14 Plaintiff without notice or reason.
15
18 from the racist and sexualized environments; she continues to suffer ongoing Anxiety and
19 PTSD after the tour; she suffers from migraines and migraine-induced eye twitch and ocular
20 distortions, brain fog, and fatigue.
21
22 49. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ conduct, and each of them, Plaintiff has suffered
23 and continues to suffer general, consequential, and special damages, including but not
24 limited to substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits, physical injuries,
25 physical sickness, as well as emotional distress, plus medical expenses, future medical
26 expenses, and attorneys’ fees, all to her damage in an amount according to proof.
27 //
28 //

12
1 50. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has also suffered severe emotional
2 distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, physical injuries, physical sickness, medical expenses,
3 future medical expenses, attorneys’ fees, and other damages to be determined at trial
4 according to proof.
6 51. Said actions justify the imposition of punitive damages in that Defendants committed the
7 acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively, with the wrongful intention
8 of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in
9 conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to
10 recover punitive damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to
11 proof.
12
13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
14 (FEHA Failure to Prevent and/or Remedy
15 Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment)
17
19
20 53. Plaintiff was subjected to harassment on the bases of her sex as alleged in more detail above.
21 Such conduct is prohibited by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov.
22 Code §12940, subdivisions (j) and (k).
23
24 54. Under the FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for the harassing conduct of its agents and
25 supervisors. (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590). FEHA
26 also requires employers to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent unlawful
27 harassment from occurring (Gov. code §12940(j), (k)).
28 //

13
1 55. Defendants, and each of them, knew of the harassing conduct that Plaintiff endured, for
2 Plaintiff’s manager, NORMURA, was in the group message that received the sexually
3 explicit image of male genitalia. Furthermore, Plaintiff informed the lead management of
4 the LIZZO and BGBT tour, Gugliotta, that she felt sexually harassed by the image in the
5 group message. Lastly, the sexually charged environment of the BGBT tour was not a secret
6 to LIZZO, her management team, or the background dancers, who have already come
7 forward in a separate lawsuit to voice their experience of the sexually hostile work
8 environment.
10 56. Plaintiff endured sexual harassment by LIZZO’s team. Specifically, there was a group chat
11 of over 30+ people from the BGBT team, which included LIZZO tour management and
12 Plaintiff. In the group message, a backstage manager sent a photo graphically depicting male
13 genitalia. No one from LIZZO’s management team addressed this graphic sexual imagery
14 in the workplace appropriately. Instead, LIZZO’s management found the image to be
15 comical, further encouraging an unsafe, sexually charged workplace culture.
16
21
28 bullying, and withholding of accommodations.

14
1 59. Plaintiff is informed and believes Gugliotta did, in fact, relay to LIZZO Plaintiff’s reports
2 of racism and mistreatment towards herself and the dancers. Gugliotta reassured Plaintiff
3 that bullying would not be tolerated.
6 Plaintiff without notice or reason.
13
14 62. Defendants failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action to stop the
15 harassment.
16
21 expenses, and attorneys’ fees (including expert costs), all to her damage in the amount
23
28 //

15
3 of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motives amounting to malice, and in
4 conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Defendants had notice and knowledge of the
5 sexually hostile work environment that Plaintiff faced but failed to take reasonable steps to
6 prevent such conduct. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive
7 damages from Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof.
9 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
10 (FEHA Racial Harassment)
11 (Plaintiff Against Defendant All Defendants)
12
14
15 67. The conduct of Defendant BGBT created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff, making
16 the conditions of her employment intolerable in direct contravention of various statutes and
17 state law decisions, including but not limited to California Government Code §12940(h) and
18 (j). Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment due to, including but not limited
19 to, Defendant NORMURA’s racists comments.
20
23 LIZZO’s tour.
24

16
3 changes.
11
19
25
28

17
10 bullying, and withholding of accommodations. Plaintiff explained she believes NOMURA’s
11 behavior was racially motivated, and stated, “It’s not lost on me that I’m one of the only
12 Black women working behind the scenes and I feel like [NOMURA] is treating me like I’m
13 a slave.”
14
15 75. Plaintiff expected Gugliotta to inform LIZZO of what was happening on LIZZO’s team
21
28 from performers, local crews, GUGLIOTTA, and even NOMURA herself.

18
7 78. Such discrimination and harassment were so severe or pervasive that it altered the terms and
8 conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, creating a hostile, abusive work environment and
9 making her working conditions intolerable. Said discrimination and harassment was a
10 regular occurrence and sufficiently extreme to amount to a change in the terms and
11 conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.
12
18
23
28

19
2 proof.
4 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (FEHA Disability Discrimination)
10 83. At all times mentioned in this complaint, Defendants regularly employed five or more
11 persons, bringing Defendants within the provisions of FEHA, Government Code, §
12 12926(d).
13
14 84. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the FEHA, Gov. Code § 12940(a), prohibiting
15 the termination of an employee, such as Plaintiff, from employment or to discriminate
16 against an employee, such as Plaintiff, on the basis of the employee's disability.
17
23

20
6 medical treatment (on this occasion and others), but was also forced to be on her feet the
13
14 88. Later in the month of February 2023, Plaintiff informed GUGLIOTTA of the widespread
15 racial and sexual harassment taking place on the tour. Specifically, Plaintiff told
16 GUGLIOTTA that the Black dancers were being mocked, objectified, and denied
17 accommodations by the stage crew and NOMURA. Plaintiff also told GUGLIOTTA that
18 she and her local teams were victims of NOMURA’s verbal and physical abuse, racist
19 comments, bullying, and withholding of accommodations. Plaintiff explained she believes
20 NOMURA’s behavior was racially motivated, and stated, “It’s not lost on me that I’m one
21 of the only Black women working behind the scenes and I feel like [NOMURA] is treating
22 me like I’m a slave.”
23
24 89. Plaintiff expected GUGLIOTTA to inform LIZZO of what was happening on LIZZO’s team

21
10
11 91. The day Plaintiff was fired, she suffered an allergic reaction that she notified both
13 at by NOMURA for taking a break to find medicine, and was pressured by NOMURA to
14 keep working or be sent home. Despite the industry standard to have a medical team
15 available at least by phone, no medical attention was ever provided.
16
22
23 93. Defendants were on notice of Plaintiff’s disability, for NOMURA, the Wardrobe Manager
24 of Defendants was the one who caused Plaintiff’s injury and subsequent disability. In
25 addition to injuring Plaintiff, NOMURA prohibited Plaintiff from wearing shoes that would
26 accommodate her disability.
27 //
28 //

22
1 94. Defendants’ adverse actions, including, but not limited to, their failure to accommodate
2 Plaintiff’s disability, was at least in part in retaliation for Plaintiff elaborating on her
3 disability.
5 95. But for Plaintiff’s disability, Defendants would not have taken adverse employment actions.
7 96. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to
8 suffer substantial losses of wages, salary, benefits and additional amounts of money that
9 Plaintiff would have received if Defendants had not discriminated against her, as alleged
10 above. As a result of such discrimination and consequent harm, Plaintiff has suffered such
11 damages in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff claims such amounts as damages
12 pursuant to California Civil Code § 3287 and/or § 3288 and/or any other provision of law
13 providing for prejudgment interest.
14
15 97. As the further legal result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has been harmed in that she has
16 suffered the intangible loss of such employment-related opportunities as experience and
17 status in the positions previously held by her, all to her damage in an amount according to
18 proof.
19
20 98. The above-cited conduct of Defendants was done with malice, fraud and oppression, and in
21 reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights under the FEHA. Defendants consciously,
22 intentionally and in conscious disregard of her rights discriminated against Plaintiff because
23 of her disability. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants in
24 an amount according to proof.
25
26 99. As the result of Defendants’ discriminatory acts as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to
27 reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit as provided by FEHA, Gov. Code § 12965(b).
28 //

23
1 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Failure to Accommodate in Violation of FEHA
7 101. Defendants have an affirmative duty under FEHA to reasonably accommodate disabled
8 workers. Such a duty arises regardless of whether the employee requested any
9 accommodation, for FEHA entitles disabled employees to preferential consideration in
10 reassignment of existing employees. (Jensen v. Wells Fargo Bank (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th
11 245).
12
15 LIZZO’s tour.
16
22

24
11
12 106. Later in the month of February 2023, Plaintiff informed GUGLIOTTA of the widespread
13 racial and sexual harassment taking place on the tour. Specifically, Plaintiff told
14 GUGLIOTTA that the Black dancers were being mocked, objectified, and denied
15 accommodations by the stage crew and NOMURA. Plaintiff also told GUGLIOTTA that
16 she and her local teams were victims of NOMURA’s verbal and physical abuse, racist
17 comments, bullying, and withholding of accommodations. Plaintiff explained she believes
18 NOMURA’s behavior was racially motivated, and stated, “It’s not lost on me that I’m one
19 of the only Black women working behind the scenes and I feel like [NOMURA] is treating
20 me like I’m a slave.”
21
28 //

25
14
20
21 111. Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s disability, set forth above because, NOMURA, the
22 Wardrobe Manager of Defendants was the one who caused Plaintiff’s injury and subsequent
23 disability. In addition to injuring Plaintiff, NOMURA prohibited Plaintiff from wearing
24 shoes that would accommodate her disability.
25
26 112. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ failure to accommodate Plaintiff’s disability,
27 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer general, consequential, and special damages,
28 including but not limited to substantial losses in earnings, other employment benefits,

26
1 physical injuries, physical sickness, as well as emotional distress, plus medical expenses,
2 future medical expenses, and attorneys’ fees all to her damage in an amount according to
3 proof.
5 113. Said discrimination and/or refusal to accommodate was wrongful and justifies the
6 imposition of punitive damages, for refusing to accommodate Plaintiff’s need to wear
7 comfortable shoes was against public policy. Defendants intentionally failed to
8 accommodate Plaintiff, acted maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful
9 intention of injuring Plaintiff. Defendant acted with an evil purpose, in an intentional and
10 deliberate manner, in violation of Plaintiff’s civil rights and/or with conscious disregard of
11 Plaintiff’s rights. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages
12 in an amount according to proof from Defendants and each of them.
13
14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process
17
19
20 115. Plaintiff, at all relevant times herein, suffered from a FEHA protected disability.
21
22 116. Defendants were aware of Plaintiff’s disability, set forth above because, NOMURA, the
23 Wardrobe Manager of Defendants was the one who caused Plaintiff’s injury and subsequent
24 disability. In addition to injuring Plaintiff, NOMURA prohibited Plaintiff from wearing
25 shoes that would accommodate her disability, without engaging in a proper interactive
26 process before doing so.
27 //
28 //

27
1 117. Plaintiff did not cause the breakdown of the interactive process with Defendants. Rather,
2 Defendants caused the breakdown of the interactive process with Plaintiff when they refused
3 to provide Plaintiff accommodations for her disability. Instead of accommodating her,
4 Defendant refused to allow Plaintiff to wear comfortable shoes, then subsequently
5 terminated her employment. Despite the fact that Defendant NORMURA caused Plaintiff’s
6 disability, Defendants did not engage in a timely, good faith interactive process with
7 Plaintiff to find an accommodation for her disability.
13 expenses, and attorneys’ fees, all to her damages in an amount according to proof.
14
15 119. As a further legal result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has been harmed in that she has
17 status in the positions previously held by her, those she would have held, all to her damage
18 in an amount according to proof.
19
21 acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention
25 proof.
26 //
27 //
28 //

28
1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
7 122. At all times herein mentioned in this complaint, Defendants regularly employed five or more
8 persons, bringing Defendants within the provisions of the FEHA Gov. Code, § 12926(d).
10 123. This cause of action is brought pursuant to FEHA, Gov. Code § 12940(h) preventing
11 Defendants from discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees, such as
12 Plaintiff, for exercising her rights protected under FEHA, such as requesting an
13 accommodation for a disability and/or complaining of sexual harassment, and/or racial
14 discrimination.
15
16 124. Defendants’ adverse actions, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff’s termination, and failure
17 to accommodate, were at least in part, in retaliation for Plaintiff’s disability, her complaints
18 about sexual harassment, and her complaints about racial discrimination.
19
22 LIZZO’s tour.
23

29
10
17 changes.
18
25

30
11
16
22

31
11
13 Plaintiff and the entire crew: (1) NOMURA threatened Plaintiff and others that she would
14 “kill a bitch” and “stab a bitch” when she could not find her medication. (2) NOMURA
15 shoved a crew member in retaliation for revealing she was threatening to quit. (3) NOMURA
16 snatched food out of a local worker’s hand for merely attempting to take an assigned break.
17 (4) NOMURA expressed that she would “kill a bitch if it came down to it” if anyone
18 threatened her job. LIZZO’s Management was well aware of this pattern of behavior.
19 Carlina GUGLIOTTA (hereinafter, “GUGLIOTTA”), LIZZO’s Tour Manager, even
20 requested Plaintiff to record NOMURA without her knowledge, which Plaintiff did not do
21 as it was both unethical and possibly unlawful.
22

32
8 139. Enough was enough. Despite being instructed to not speak with management, Plaintiff
18
25

33
15
21
27 //
28 //

34
1 146. As a further legal result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has been harmed in that she has
3 status in the positions previously held by her, those she would have held, all to her damage
4 in an amount according to proof.
8 future medical expenses, attorneys’ fees, and other damages to be determined in an amount
10
12 acts alleged herein maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively, with the wrongful intention
13 of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive amount to malice, and in conscious
14 disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Defendants had notice and knowledge of the harassment,
15 discrimination, and Plaintiff’s disability but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such
16 conduct. Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from
17 Defendants, and each of them, in an amount according to proof.
18
19 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 6310
22
24
25 150. At all times herein mentioned in this Complaint, California Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 6310
26 was in full force and effect and binding on Defendants and Defendants were subject to its
27 terms. Defendants wrongfully retaliated against Plaintiff for reasons and in a manner
28 contrary to public policy, on a pre-textual basis, because of her complaints about workplace

35
1 harassment and discrimination, as herein above alleged.
3 151. Pursuant to California Labor Code § 1102.5, subdivision (c), and California Labor Code §
4 6310, subdivision (b), an employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall
5 not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result
6 in violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state,
7 or federal rule or regulation.
11 LIZZO’s tour.
12
19
27 //
28 //

36
7 changes.
15
23

37
11
18

38
4 shoved a crew member in retaliation for revealing she was threatening to quit. (3) NOMURA
5 snatched food out of a local worker’s hand for merely attempting to take an assigned break.
6 (4) NOMURA expressed that she would “kill a bitch if it came down to it” if anyone
7 threatened her job. LIZZO’s Management was well aware of this pattern of behavior.
8 Carlina GUGLIOTTA (hereinafter, “GUGLIOTTA”), LIZZO’s Tour Manager, even
9 requested Plaintiff to record NOMURA without her knowledge, which Plaintiff did not do
10 as it was both unethical and possibly unlawful.
11
19
24
25 166. Enough was enough. Despite being instructed to not speak with management, Plaintiff

39
14
22
26

40
10
11 172. Said retaliation was and is in violation of § §1102.5 and 6310. of the Labor Code because
12 the actual reason for terminating Plaintiff was for her complaints of Defendants’ illegal
13 activities, specifically, Defendants’ sexual and racial harssment.
14
15 173. As a direct and legal result of Defendants’ retaliatory actions against Plaintiff for her
16 protected activity herein referenced, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer general,
17 consequential, and special damages, including but not limited to substantial losses in
18 earnings, other employment benefits, physical injuries, physical sickness, as well as
19 emotional distress, plus medical expenses, future medical expenses, and attorneys’ fees, all
20 to her damage in an amount according to proof.
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //

41
1 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 Assault
3 (Plaintiff Against Defendant NOMURA)
7 175. On or about February 14, 2023, Plaintiff began working on LIZZO’s tour. Plaintiff
8 reported to NOMURA, who was Plaintiff’s supervisor for the entirety of her employment
9 with LIZZO’s tour.
10
11 176. In or around mid-February of 2023, Plaintiff and NOMURA were transporting a heavy
12 rack of clothing, when NOMURA rolled the rack over Plaintiff’s foot. Plaintiff stopped
13 and informed NOMURA she needed to sit down, as her foot was in serious
14 pain. Shockingly, NOMURA proceeded to shove Plaintiff into the rack of clothing, while
15 asserting Plaintiff should not make excuses about her foot and must help NOMURA
16 transport the clothing.
17
19 Plaintiff came to work in “croc” shoes which minimized the pain. When NOMURA
20 noticed the Plaintiff’s orthopedic shoes, she demanded Plaintiff to change into tennis
21 shoes. Plaintiff explained her ankle was swollen and injured after the rack incident, and
22 that it was painful to walk in tennis shoes. However, NOMURA forced Plaintiff to wear
23 the painful tennis shoes so that she could move heavy cases while injured.
24
28 shoved a crew member in retaliation for revealing she was threatening to quit. (3)

42
1 NOMURA snatched food out of a local worker’s hand for merely attempting to take an
2 assigned break. (4) NOMURA expressed that she would “kill a bitch if it came down to
3 it” if anyone threatened her job. LIZZO’s Management was well aware of this pattern of
4 behavior. Carlina GUGLIOTTA (hereinafter, “GUGLIOTTA”), LIZZO’s Tour Manager,
5 even requested Plaintiff to record NOMURA without her knowledge, which Plaintiff did
6 not do as it was both unethical and possibly unlawful.
8 179. Defendant NOMURA committed these acts during the course and scope of her capacity
9 as manager/supervising agent of BGBT and LIZZO.
10
11 180. In doing the acts as alleged above, NOMURA intended to cause or to place Plaintiff in
12 apprehension of harmful and offensive bodily contact.
13
14 181. In fact, as alleged above, NOMURA made contact with Plaintiff’s person.
15
16 182. As a direct result of NOMURA’s actions, Plaintiff was placed in great apprehension of
17 harmful contact to her person.
18
19 183. At no time did Plaintiff consent to being contacted by NOMURA.
20
21 184. As a proximate result of the acts of NOMURA as alleged above, Plaintiff feared for her
22 safety and was injured. This fear caused and continues to cause Plaintiff severe emotional
23 distress. As a result of these injuries, Plaintiff have suffered general damages.
24
25 185. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the aforesaid acts directed towards her were carried
26 out with a conscious disregard for her right to be free from tortious behavior, such as to
27 constitute oppression, fraud, and/or malice pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294,
28 entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish and deter

43
1 Defendant NOMURA from engaging in this type of behavior.
3 PRAYER
5 1. For damages according to proof, including unpaid wages, loss of earnings, deferred
6 compensation, and other employment benefits;
8 2. For general damages, including but not limited to emotional distress, according to
9 proof;
10
11 3. For other special damages according to proof, including but not limited to
12 reasonable medical expenses;
13
14 4. For punitive damages according to proof;
15
16 5. For prejudgment interest on lost wages and benefits;
17
18 6. For costs incurred by Plaintiff, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of
19 suit, in obtaining the benefits due to Plaintiff and for violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights through
20 the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code § 1102.5(j), as set forth above; and
21
22 7. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28 //

44
1 Dated: September 19, 2023 WEST COAST EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, APLC
2
4 By:
Ronald Zambrano, Esq.
5 Attorney for Plaintiff,
ASHA DANIELS
6
8 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

9
10 Plaintiff hereby respectfully demands a jury trial.

11
12
13 Dated: September 19, 2023 WEST COAST EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, APLC

14
15
16
By:
17 Ronald Zambrano, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff,
18 ASHA DANIELS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

45

Asha Daniels' Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asha Daniels' Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asha Daniels' Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neama Rahmani (State Bar No.

9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

17 JEFFERSON (aka “LIZZO”), as an (3) FEHA RACIAL HARASSMENT;

20 Defendants. (6) FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN THE INTERACTIVE PROCESS IN

26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

3 Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, “BGBT” or “Defendant”), MELISSA JEFFERSON

4 (professionally known and hereinafter referred to as, “LIZZO” or “Defendant”), an Individual,

5 AMANDA NOMURA (hereinafter referred to as, “NOMURA” or “Defendant), and CARLINA

6 GUGLIOTTA (hereinafter referred to as, “GUGLIOTTA”), (collectively referred to as

7 “Defendants”), respectfully alleges, avers, and complains as follows:

11 1. This is an action brought by the Plaintiff, DANIES, pursuant to California statutory,

14 and LIZZO at all times herein mentioned.

20 JURISIDICTION AND VENUE

26 Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

7 New York, State of New York.

11 located at 1013 Centre Road, Suite 403s, Wilmington, Delaware 19805.

26 to as a fictitious name, said Defendants supervised, ratified, controlled, acquiesced in,

28 omissions, of each remaining Defendant.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, partnership, association, or otherwise, are

5 at such time as they are ascertained.

18 opportunities to accept joining LIZZO’s tour as a favor to NOMURA.

22 empowerment of women. Unfortunately, the opposite turned out to be true. Plaintiff

25 management without consequence because she is a Black woman.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

7 frequently denied breaks by NOMURA. Plaintiff’s movement and communication with

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6 cases, fire, the Black female performers.

14 need and ask for, despite those items being stocked.

19 dancers and LIZZO by doing an offensive stereotypical impression of a Black woman.

25 lack of privacy and accommodations for the dancers.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

10 shoes so that she could move heavy cases while injured.

21 continue with physical labor without medical treatment.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

10 appropriately. Instead, LIZZO’s management found the image to be comical, further

11 encouraging an unsafe, sexually charged workplace culture.

24 physical abuse, racist comments, bullying, and withholding of accommodations. Plaintiff

27 [NOMURA] is treating me like I’m a slave.”

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

6 GUGLIOTTA reassured Plaintiff that bullying would not be tolerated.

10 “everyone knows [NOMURA] is crazy.” GUGLIOTTA apologized to Plaintiff several times

14 from performers, local crews, Gugliotta, and even NOMURA herself.

18 was set to end and put on a March 6, 2023 flight home.

24 least by phone, no medical attention was ever provided.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

5 ocular distortions, brain fog, and fatigue.

14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

15 (FEHA Hostile Work Environment – Sexual Harassment)

16 (Plaintiff Against All Defendants)

25 exposure of Plaintiff to nudity in their employee group message.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 amount to a change in the terms and conditions of’ Plaintiff’s employment.

20 Instead, LIZZO’s management found the image to be comical, further encouraging an

21 unsafe, sexually charged workplace culture.

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL