It looks like the courts will have an easy time dismissing this one. It is reported that the lawyer of Ostrowsky, Joy Hachstadt, has no evidence whatsoever to present to the court and that her and her client are actually on the lookout for some. All they have now is "hearsay" evidence, which, in terms of the legal world, is near the equivalency of a $2 bill.
Ostrowsky also mentions in the suit that he was unfairly targeted for firing with a bad teacher rating and demands reparations for emotional distress. That might not be the best information to put into an argument to present in front of a jury. Quickly, the 73 pages becomes Angry Ex-Worker Seeking Revenge Vs. Boss.
And The Post reports the lawyer who brought the suit has been cited and fined for bringing frivolous lawsuits before.
Still, the allegations are damaging to Mulgrew and the UFT leadership.
You'll note that he does not deny a relationship with the woman in question in his letter to the membership, nor does he deny handing her a job at the union.
But in his letter, Mulgrew does state the following:
When an organization like ours strongly defends the public schools, their students and its members, our opponents will seize on any opportunity to make teachers and their union a target.
Union opponents aren't making teachers a target by bringing this suit.
The suit was brought by a "U" rated teacher who is disgruntled by the lack of defense he received from Mr. Mulgrew and the UFT leadership after his rating.
And no one is attacking teachers in this suit.
The target of the attack is Mulgrew and the UFT leadership for their patronage system.
These allegations open up a window for the membership, even the blindest members, to see the core of corruption and patronage at the top of the UFT.
Now whether that translates into anything next election year is another story.
But it does put Mulgrew and the UFT leadership on the defensive at a crucial time in the waning years (we hope) of King Bloomberg I's Reign of Terror.