Document Journal and its co-founder/editor-in-chief are facing a $1.2 million lawsuit for allegedly failing to pay its Creative and Fashion Director. According to the complaint that she filed in a New York federal court on November 9, Sarah Richardson claims that she served as the Creative and Fashion Director of both the print and digital versions of Document Journal since September 2017, and despite being promised a salary and equity stake in the indie fashion publication, co-founder Nick Vogelson never made good on such compensation, marking the latest in a string of lawsuits accusing magazines of failing to pay their workers.
Setting the stage in the newly-filed lawsuit, Richardson asserts that Vogelson approached her in 2016 with an offer for her to become the Fashion Director of Document Journal, “which at the time was at the fringe of the fashion industry and struggling financially.” Richardson states that “under Vogelson’s proposal, rather than be paid the full value of her services in cash, Richardson would receive a 15-percent equity interest in Document Publishing LLC plus an annual payment of $60,000, which was partly for expenses.” That equity stake was increased to 25 percent in 2017 when Vogelson asked her to take on the position of Creative Director, as well.
Still yet, “Later, because [she] was providing such valuable services for the benefit of Document Journal and because she had yet to receive cash compensation,” Richardson alleges that “Vogelson agreed to increase her equity interest in Document Publishing LLC to 30 percent.”
Richardson – who previously served as the Global Fashion Director for i-D, consulted for brands like Jil Sander, Lanvin, Nina Ricci, and Jimmy Choo, and “played a key role in the re-launch of Yves Saint Laurent” – says that she undertook the positions of Fashion Director and Creative Director “with the expectation the parties would enter into a contract and an operating agreement to memorialize the arrangement.” While the parties “retained counsel to draft and negotiate a contract and an operating agreement to memorialize the terms under which [she] would perform her services for the benefit of Document Journal,” Richardson maintains that “negotiations dragged endlessly” and eventually petered out entirely, leaving her and Vogelson without a contract for her services.
Vogelson “knew of [her] expectation of compensation” and “accepted the services rendered by [Richardson],” including “supervising and managing all fashion story concepts,” “overseeing the fashion department and consulting with regard to all departmental hiring and firing,” “making introductions that led to investments in and loans to Document Publishing LLC,” and “introducing luxury brands to Document and convincing the brands to advertise in the magazine.” Yet, Richardson claims that she “never received an equity interest in Document Publishing LLC” and “never received compensation for the services she rendered for the benefit of Document Journal.”
Nonetheless, she asserts that Vogelson “has used the substantial cash flow to pay himself a compensation package, which includes a salary and reimbursement for personal expenses,” and “to hire as Chief of Staff of Document Journal a person with whom he has an intimate relationship.”
“Under industry norms,” Richardson contends that a freelance creative director her “talent, prestige, and contacts would command an annual fee of at least $150,000 to $250,000 for the services she rendered for the benefit of Document Journal.” With the foregoing in mind and given that Vogelson “has refused to pay for the services rendered,” Richardson sets out claims of Quantum Meruit (an equitable remedy that provides restitution for unjust enrichment) and Unjust Enrichment, and is seeking compensatory damages in an amount “not less than $1,200,000, with interest” from Vogelson and Document Publishing LLC.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: Hardly the first case to shed light on the allegedly messy workings of indie fashion magazines, L’Officiel Magazine was sued by the City of New York back in November 2021 as a result of its alleged pattern of “failing to either compensate and/or timely compensate freelance workers for work performed for, or services provided to, [it] under contract.” According to the complaint waged by the New York City Law Department and the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, L’Officiel “published articles, photography, and illustrations by freelancers but either did not pay them at all or sometimes paid them months, even years later,” thereby, running afoul of New York City’s Freelance Isn’t Free Act (“FIFA”). The case, which ultimately settled in July 2023, was the first time that the City used the FIFA as the basis for litigation.
As part of the settlement, in addition to providing compensation to freelancers who were not fully compensated during the relevant period (January 1, 2017 and July 11, 2023), L’Officiel was required to implement a 2-year-long employee training and an effective freelancer payment system, which includes providing all freelancers with a written contract fulfilling all terms required by § 20-928 of FIFA, retaining a record of all written freelance contracts for not less than six years following the date of completion of the contracted for work, tracking payment due dates for all freelance work and timely identify jobs for which payment is outstanding in advance of the payment due date, and documenting proof of compensation, including the date of payment, for all freelance work, among other things.
The case is Richardson v. Vogelson, 1:23-cv-09940 (SDNY).
Share
