In a significant development, Alexandra "Sasha" Suda, the former director and CEO of the Philadelphia Art Museum (PhAM), has filed a lawsuit against the institution following her recent dismissal. Her legal action, initiated on November 10, centers on allegations of wrongful termination and multiple violations of her employment agreement. Suda contends that a clandestine "corrupt faction of the Board" orchestrated a "sham investigation" to facilitate her removal, and she was dismissed without a valid cause. This lawsuit seeks to compel the museum to honor the two years of severance promised in her five-year contract, in addition to other forms of compensation.
Suda's termination, which she describes as occurring "without valid basis," followed her refusal to accept a severance package that would have afforded her only six months of pay. This lesser offer, she argues, not only contradicted her original contract but also included a non-disparagement clause that would have prevented her from publicly defending her reputation, while allowing museum officials to criticize her. A particularly critical aspect of her complaint highlights the potential severe impact on her immigration status, as a Canadian citizen, the reduced severance could jeopardize her eligibility for a Green Card, potentially forcing her and her family to leave the country.
The museum has responded to the lawsuit, stating that they believe it is "without merit" and declining further comment. However, Suda's legal team is pushing for a jury trial to address these claims. The lawsuit details Suda's tenure at PhAM since 2022, during which she reportedly worked to revitalize the museum's culture, programming, and financial health. Despite facing what she describes as persistent resistance and interference from certain board members, including former Board Chair Leslie Anne Miller, current Board Chair Ellen Caplan, and Vice Chair Osagie Imasogie, Suda claims significant achievements. These include reducing the museum's deficit by two-thirds, securing nearly $17 million in Fiscal Year 2025, and spearheading diversity initiatives like the establishment of the Brind Center for African and African Diasporic Art.
The legal filing further elaborates on the alleged obstacles Suda faced. She claims that Miller frequently undermined her authority by excluding her from negotiations and making unauthorized financial and personnel decisions, even verbally abusing her in front of staff. Upon Caplan's appointment as Board Chair, Suda alleges similar problematic behavior, including Caplan's disparagement of museum staff and her refusal to investigate complaints against board members with whom she had close personal ties. Moreover, Suda recounts an incident where Vice Chair Imasogie allegedly advised her that her inability to work with Miller or Caplan would reflect poorly on her, subtly implying that Caplan's position was secure irrespective of Suda's concerns.
In the months leading up to her termination, Suda asserts that Caplan orchestrated a biased review of her leadership and a clandestine executive committee meeting to hold a vote of confidence without her knowledge. Despite an initial 8-2 vote in her favor, Caplan allegedly reframed Suda's approved expenditures as personal financial impropriety. This included highlighting Suda's annual 3% cost-of-living raise, totaling approximately $39,000 over two years, which Suda had partially waived in her first year to help the museum's financial recovery, as evidence of self-interest. These accusations prompted an external "forensic investigation" into Suda's travel and expenses, which, despite finding no actual misconduct, was used to characterize her as financially irresponsible and recommend her resignation.
Following the external firm's report, Caplan reportedly initiated a second vote of confidence, resulting in an 8-2 decision for Suda's termination. Her subsequent refusal to agree to the museum's revised severance and non-disparagement terms led directly to her dismissal. Through this lawsuit, Suda aims to hold the Philadelphia Art Museum accountable for what she describes as its bad faith actions, unlawful termination, and a deliberate campaign to damage her professional career and reputation.
