judge Aenlle-Rocha ruled<\/a> that Daniels could not sue the Grammy winner as an individual, but Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc remained a defendant.<\/p>\nIn his ruling this week, he said the former wardrobe assistant did not identify any conduct by company employees that would demonstrate “general hostility to women in the workplace” or “disparate treatment of men and women”.<\/p>\n
He also wrote that this alleged conduct and these alleged incidents, “while inappropriate and unprofessional”, fell “within the scope of what the Supreme Court has held to be outside the protection” of the “ordinary tribulations of the workplace”.<\/p>\n
Aenlle-Rocha also responded to an incident in which the stylist claims her foot was run over by a heavy clothes rack. <\/p>\n
He wrote that while the court “does not seek to minimise or disregard the pain” felt, the injuries “do not qualify as disabilities” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).<\/p>\n
In a statement, Daniels’ lawyer Ron Zambrano said they are “disappointed” with the ruling.<\/p>\n
“While we respect the court and the judicial process, we believe the decision improperly weighed evidence that should have been evaluated by a jury,” he said. <\/p>\n
He also noted that they disagree the stylist “twisting her ankle and limping while trying to work does not meet the legal standard of a disability under the ADA”. <\/p>\n
“These are important issues because these claims often depend on how a jury evaluates the full workplace environment, the surrounding context, and disputed facts,” he said.<\/p>\n
He added that they “respectfully disagree” with the court’s approach and are “considering appropriate next steps”.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n