Court orders private arbitration in legal dispute between Philadelphia Art Museum and former CEO Sasha Suda
A Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas judge has granted the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s motion to compel arbitration in its high-profile wrongful termination dispute with former Director and CEO Sasha Suda. The ruling effectively removes the contentious legal battle from the public court system, mandating that the allegations from both sides be resolved through a confidential dispute resolution process as outlined in Suda’s employment contract.
The legal conflict stems from Suda’s abrupt termination in November 2025, roughly three years into her five-year contract. Following her dismissal, Suda filed a civil lawsuit seeking two years of severance pay and damages, alleging she was the victim of a “corrupt and unethical faction” of the museum’s board of trustees. Her legal team argued that these board members actively undermined her efforts to modernize the institution and fabricated grounds to fire her “for cause” to avoid paying her contractually obligated severance. Suda had sought a public jury trial, arguing that the nature of the board’s alleged misconduct warranted judicial transparency rather than a closed-door proceeding.
However, the museum argued that Suda’s employment agreement explicitly required binding arbitration for such disputes. In court filings supporting their motion, the institution revealed the specific reasons for her termination, alleging that Suda had “misappropriated funds” by awarding herself unauthorized salary increases. The museum claims that Suda bypassed the Compensation Committee to approve these raises and subsequently lied to investigators to cover up the theft. The board reportedly voted 12-0 to terminate her employment based on these findings.
Suda’s attorneys have vigorously denied the financial misconduct allegations, characterizing the board’s internal investigation as a “sham” designed to create a pretext for her removal. They maintain that the salary adjustments were either proper or made based on advice from subordinates, and that the true motivation for her ouster was internal resistance to her leadership style and strategic changes.
Suda’s tenure at the museum was marked by significant turbulence, including a lengthy strike by unionized staff and a controversial rebranding initiative that renamed the institution “PhAM,” which drew mixed reactions from the public and donors. The court’s decision to enforce arbitration means that the specific evidence regarding the alleged unauthorized raises and the internal board communications will likely remain confidential, barring a final settlement announcement. The case will now move to a private arbitrator who will issue a binding decision on whether the museum had valid cause to terminate Suda without severance.
whyy.org
theartnewspaper.com
youtube.com
theartnewspaper.com
youtube.com
billypenn.com
culturalsafeguardalliance.org
