Lizzo's accusers break silence on live TV: 'Here's why we were terminated'

Lizzo’s back up dancers have stepped forward with more insight into the real reason they wound up getting terminated, in the middle of their sexual harassment lawsuit.

According to claims by the dancers, the reason citied on their termination notice was chalked up to being ‘budget cuts’.

The three girls currently taking Lizzo to court, broke it all down in their interview with Channel 4 News.

All three, Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez called Lizzo out, by name and branded their dealings with the Juice singer, “disheartening”.

They even called her take to body positivity ‘performative’, given the weight-based comments they allegedly endured during their time on set with the singer.

Crystal spoke on behalf of the other two and said, “I think for me I just want to make it clear that those were not the reasons provided to us in regards to why we were being terminated.”

“For my situation in particular, they told me I was being laid off due to budget cuts [...] I even requested to speak to Lizzo on numerous occasions to which her management declined so that sentiment of her saying it was due to that, doesn't hold any real weight to me.”

In regards to the initial reaction she had once Lizzo released her own statement on the matter, she said, “Initially for me it just further deepened my disappointment in regards to how I was feeling and how I was treated.”

“I think the overall theme in all this is that our experiences were our experiences and our traumas were our traumas. In bringing that forward, it feels like it was disregarded completely.”

“It feels like we were made out to be putting out false allegations when that's not the case,” she also went as far as to say.

Before concluding she also added, “So yes, it was very disheartening to read and feel overlooked especially when she stands for what she stands for in regards to women's empowerment - being an advocate for mental health - being an advocate for body positivity - and to just further prove that that's not the case, because nothing was acknowledged in that statement.”