Curator information explosive lawsuit in opposition to Robilant + Voena gallery alleging poisonous office and different violations

In contrast with the comparatively frequent situations of unhealthy behaviour within the commerce for modern and Trendy artwork, the champions of Previous Masters are usually considered not solely extra connoisseurial however usually extra refined and upstanding. That picture takes critical injury in an explosive, multimillion-dollar lawsuit filed in New York final month in opposition to Edmondo di Robilant, Marco Voena and their high-end Previous Grasp dealership Robilant + Voena.

Introduced by the curator Virginia Good, who labored as an unbiased marketing consultant to the gallery from December 2019 till earlier this 12 months, the grievance (first reported by The Day by day Beast) accuses the Robilant + Voena’s namesakes of making a office overrun by antisemitism, sexism, sexual harassment, homophobia, physique shaming and common toxicity. It additionally accuses the sellers of breach of contract, discriminatory labour practices and reneging on a pledge to cowl tons of of 1000’s of {dollars} in medical prices for Good’s breast most cancers remedy.

Previous to being employed by the gallery, Good had been the top of the European work division on the Wonderful Artwork Museums of San Francisco since 2017. Her earlier institutional roles included being the curator of collections on the Ringling Museum of Artwork in Sarasota, Florida, following curatorial stints on the Cleveland Museum of Artwork and the J. Paul Getty Museum. Her work for Robilant + Voena ranged broadly, from performing analysis and writing scholarly essays on artistic endeavors, to sourcing and promoting stock, to managing the gallery’s New York location, to translating paperwork from Italian into English and even “[producing] movies”. The lawsuit portrays the complete scope of Good’s duties as one during which she was anticipated to “in each respect undertake assignments that far exceeded the scope of an unbiased contractor”, with out both assist workers for many of her tenure or aid from a pervasive environment of bigotry and antagonism.

Good is in search of not less than $3m plus extra damages to be decided, in addition to the reimbursement of her authorized charges. Mitchell Cantor, the lawyer representing Good, informed The Artwork Newspaper, “The grievance which was filed in New York State Supreme Court docket speaks for itself,” including: “All the related information are contained in it.” A request for remark despatched to Robilant + Voena was not instantly returned.

Allegations of toxicity

Probably the most jaw-dropping accusations within the lawsuit revolve across the claims that Robilant and Voena “created a poisonous office surroundings by repeatedly, commonly and continuously making misogynistic, antisemitic, racist and homophobic feedback within the presence of and directed towards” Good. To the latter level, the grievance alleges that Robilant repeatedly referred to as her “a silly f…g c…t”, presumably indicating an egregious slang time period for feminine sexual anatomy, and subjected her to “common phone calls earlier than and after enterprise hours during which in (sic) Robilant has screamed at her and cursed at her”.

Additional accusations embody that Robilant and Voena “repeatedly and regularly harassed [Brilliant] on the idea of her gender and bodily look”. Such situations had been mentioned to have “occurred continuously” and included Robilant pressuring Good to “have sexual relations with a colleague to safe a consignment”, enquiring about what number of males she had slept with and recounting to her how he had misplaced his virginity. As well as, the lawsuit alleges, Voena confirmed Good “a number of pictures of considered one of [his] mistresses clad solely in provocative lingerie”.

Even Robilant’s spouse is alleged to have contributed to the issues. She purportedly recommended that Good reduce weight “by following a weight loss plan of champagne and Xanax” and, during times during which the curator was already enduring radiation, chemotherapy and surgical procedure for her most cancers, mailed her a number of shipments of “unlawful, unprescribed” and unsolicited medication; the contents are mentioned to have included 1,200 Xanax tablets and what the lawsuit attests was “generic Ozempic in tablet type sourced within the Balkans so ‘[Brilliant] might unfastened [sic] 25 kilos earlier than [Tefaf] Maastricht’”.

Claims of antisemitism run rampant by way of the grievance. It asserts that Robilant and Voena “commonly and routinely used phrases equivalent to ‘f…ing Jew’, ‘that f….g Jew’, ‘disgusting Jews’, ‘ X’s spouse is a Jew so all these fairly blond youngsters are simply extra f….g Jews’, ‘they’re simply grasping f….g Jews pretending to be as English because the Queen’” and extra. These allegations tackle an much more insidious solid within the context of Good herself, who claims to have been informed at one level throughout her tenure on the gallery that she was “simply Jewish sufficient to be convincing to American shoppers”.

Different demographics got here beneath verbal assault at Robilant + Voena, too, the grievance asserts. Voena is alleged to have instructed Good to edit the textual content of an interview he had executed with a journalist to “make me not sound racist: I don’t like Black folks, they’re disgusting, however I’m not racist”. (Two different gallery staffers are mentioned to have heard this remark.) The lawsuit additionally purports that Voena “commonly and routinely” used a well-recognized slur and its shortened type to seek advice from “individuals he believed to be homosexual”, together with not solely Robilant himself but additionally Robilant’s son and uncle.

Breach of contract and office discrimination

The grievance makes claims of tangible, monetary misdeeds executed to Good by Robilant and Voena, as properly. It petitions the court docket for $580,000 for alleged uncompensated labour carried out by Good from 2020 till 2023, assessed on the price of her earlier curatorial wage of $145,000 yearly. As compared, her agreed compensation from Robilant + Voena consisted of a base wage of $50,000 (mentioned to have been decreased to $40,000 in April 2020 beneath the auspices of slicing prices through the Covid-19 lockdowns), plus commissions starting from 10% to twenty% of income on the sale of works relying on whether or not mentioned works had been sourced by Good, offered by Good or each.

The gallery’s guarantees of fee funds and medical help had been brittle, in line with the lawsuit. Good alleges she continues to be owed a fee of $57,500 from the sale of an Orsola Caccia portray in December 2023, regardless of the shopper’s cost in full the next month. The grievance additionally seeks recompense for Robilant and Voena’s alleged reversal on a pledge to cowl the prices of Good’s medical therapies after she was identified with breast most cancers this February. (As an unbiased contractor, she obtained no healthcare protection or different advantages from the gallery.) These prices will rise to greater than $200,000, the lawsuit estimates; she is suing for $257,500 to make up for the hole left by Robilant and Voena’s alleged refusal to make good on their dedication.

Underlying among the monetary accusations is an allegedly stark distinction between the compensation of Good, whose doctorate from the Courtauld Institute preceded her curatorial profession, versus that of a much less skilled male worker. That different worker, the lawsuit claims, had not but turned 30 when he was introduced on by Robilant + Voena as a gallery supervisor and gross sales affiliate, had no schooling past an undergraduate diploma, no expertise working as an institutional curator or in a “vital or senior” position at a industrial gallery, no coaching in both of the gallery’s specialties (Previous Grasp and post-war Italian artwork) and “no shoppers or another particular expertise”. The grievance states that he was nonetheless paid double Good’s base wage, plus unspecified advantages denied her, “for the only motive that he was male quite than feminine”.

The lawsuit additional alleges that Good was the one girl to work for the gallery for the almost 4 years between her begin with Robilant + Voena in December 2019 and the hiring of a feminine salesperson on the New York location in September 2023. The co-founders’ reactions to the collapse of potential transactions had been additionally mentioned to range dramatically relying on whether or not Good or a male colleague was liable for main the deal. Within the latter circumstances, the grievance states, Robilant and Voena “had been sometimes sympathetic”, whereas “Robilant specifically berated, castigated and screamed at [Brilliant]… in some circumstances demanding to know ‘how/the place you f….d up’”.

Robilant + Voena at present operates galleries in London, New York, Paris and Milan. It has been a mainstay exhibitor at high-end artwork festivals for years, together with Tefaf’s festivals in Maastricht and New York, Frieze’s festivals in London, Los Angeles and Seoul and Artwork Basel in Miami Seashore. The defendants have till 3 July to answer Good’s lawsuit in court docket.