"pressured Ms Davis to touch the breasts" of a performer in a nightclub in Amsterdam, and Ms Davis - after resisting - eventually acquiesced "fearing it may harm her future on the team" if she didn't do so.

So that could be bad, or it could be "go on girl, touch em!" and she interpreted refusal to be deleterious to her career without direct evidence.

The dancers allege that "only the dance cast - comprised of full-figured women of colour - were ever spoken to in this manner, giving [the dancers] the impression that these comments were charged with racial and fat-phobic animus".

That confuses me. It'd make more sense if the dance cast had women of full-figure and not full-figure, and women both of and not of color if only the former of each were being denigrated. But it could also be that the dance cast misbehaved and was scolded in entirety and this is an assumption.

Additionally, it alleges the dance team's captain, Shirlene Quigley, pushed her Christian beliefs on performers and derided those who engaged in premarital sex.

She is also accused of openly discussing one of the former dancers' virginity, and posting about it on social media.

2nd line is about Quigley as well? That sounds weird since Lizzo isn't exactly a Christian virture bastion and her videos and songs can be quite sex-positive. But even if so, that's tangentially only a problem with Lizzo for employing her.

These accusations seem oddly non-specific for sexual harassment.

[–] MrsEaves@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Regarding the nightclub … the easiest way I’ve found to sort my feelings out on this was to imagine how hard I’d cringe if this skit was in my corporate-sponsored sexual harassment training. The answer is something around the level of crawl-in-a-hole-and-die rather than endure this skit, and I’m pretty sure “Director So and So is planning a company party and suggested a strip club. How would you respond?” was an actual scenario in one of the many I’ve had to sit through.