Less than a week after she was terminated “for cause” from her role as the director and CEO of the Philadelphia Art Museum (PhAM) in an email, Alexandra “Sasha” Suda has filed a lawsuit against the museum today, November 10, alleging unlawful termination and multiple violations of her employment agreement. Suda’s suit came to light hours after the Philadelphia Inquirer confirmed that PhAM’s executive committee of trustees commissioned an external investigation that recommended her departure from the museum.
Reviewed by Hyperallergic, the lawsuit alleges that a “small, corrupt faction of the Board” orchestrated the “sham investigation” and demanded her resignation. Suda says that her “for cause” termination was issued “without valid basis,” alleging that she was dismissed while negotiating the terms of her departure because she refused to sign an agreement with PhAM that would not only “would allow the Museum’s officers and agents to disparage [her], while [she] would be prohibited from discussing her departure publicly or defend[ing] her reputation,” but also only afford her six months of severance pay versus the two years promised in her five-year contract.
Suda has requested a jury trial, aiming to recoup the two years of severance in addition to damages and other relief. However, as outlined in the suit, the most pressing aspect of her termination is that the museum had reportedly proposed to provide Suda, a Canadian citizen, with her six-month severance package in January, thus leaving her with no official source of income to qualify for a Green Card in light of her preceding scheduled interview. The complaint notes that Suda would have “60 days to exit the country where she resides with her family and where her children attend elementary school.”
“The Art Museum is aware of the recently filed complaint against the museum, and we believe it is without merit,” a PhAM spokesperson shared in an email with Hyperallergic, noting that the museum will not be commenting further at the moment. Suda’s legal team did not immediately respond to Hyperallergic‘s additional inquiries.
The lawsuit outlines that while Suda worked toward the goal of massively transforming the museum’s culture, programming, and financial health since 2022, she says she was met with board resistance and interference at nearly every step of the way — primarily through then Board Chair Leslie Anne Miller, current Board Chair Ellen Caplan, and Vice Chair Osagie Imasogie. [Miller and Caplan could not be reached for comment; Imasogie has not yet replied to Hyperallergic‘s request for comment]
Despite the difficulties Suda mentions, the suit highlights that she reduced the museum’s deficit by two-thirds; oversaw the museum bringing in nearly $17 million in Fiscal Year 2025; organized successful diversity programming and initiatives, including the development of the museum’s Brind Center for African and African Diasporic Art; and revitalized PhAM’s overall attendance and its connection with the city’s schools, among other achievements. It’s also noted that Suda chose to waive her annual 3% raise in her first year to help alleviate the museum’s deficit.
Throughout the reported successes, however, Suda also alleges in the suit how Miller often undermined her role by excluding her from negotiations, making unauthorized financial and personnel decisions, and “verbally abusing [her] in front of staff.” After Miller’s exit as board chair, Caplan’s appointment was allegedly as problematic for Suda, with Caplan considering majority approval of Suda as equal to minority dissent, reportedly disparaging museum staff in one instance, and refusing to conduct investigations into staff complaints against board members with whom she maintained close personal relationships.
Suda also recalls in the suit that during a one-to-one lunch about the board chairs, Vice Chair Imasogie allegedly told her “that the fact that you can’t work with [Miller or Caplan] looks bad on you,” and to “just know that if somebody stays, it’s going to be [Caplan].”
In the months leading up to Suda’s termination, she alleges that Caplan orchestrated a biased review of her leadership as well as a “secret meeting” with the executive committee of trustees to take a vote of confidence behind her back. When there was an 8-2 majority vote of confidence, Caplan reportedly pivoted to characterize Suda’s approved spending as using museum funds for personal gain and cited Suda’s annual 3% cost-of-living raise approved by the museum’s CFO — approximately $39,000 over two years, considering Suda’s waiver in her first year — as evidence of Suda prioritizing herself over the museum.
After these allegations transpired, the museum reportedly hired the external law firm to conduct its “forensic investigation” into Suda’s travel and other expenses. “Despite finding no actual misconduct, the law firm falsely characterized Suda as financially irresponsible and recommended that she be given the opportunity to resign,” the lawsuit claims.
Per the complaint, Caplan subsequently staged a second vote of confidence with the executive committee that yielded flipped results — 8-2 vote in favor of Suda’s termination. Afterwards, Suda’s refusal to sign off on the museum’s updated severance and non-disparagement terms for her resignation resulted in her dismissal.
“Suda seeks to hold the Museum accountable for its bad faith, its unlawful termination, and its deliberate effort to destroy her career and reputation,” the suit reiterates.
