The laws in New York are a lot different than they are in California, so they'll have to adjust the thrust of the suit.
From this Jessica Bakeman article in Capital NY, you can see how the deformers are not only dreaming big, they're dreaming too big:
New York and California’s teacher tenure rules are broadly similar, with some important differences. Unions have argued that New York’s laws are significantly more stringent than California’s, while reform leaders say the two sets of laws are the same in essence if not in content.
While both states have a probationary period for new teachers, after which teachers are generally given tenure, New York’s is at least three years, while California’s is eighteen months. Union leaders say New York’s law allows for more time to help and observe teachers.
In California, unlike in New York, uncertified teachers can be awarded tenure, and disciplinary hearings for California teachers can legally extend far longer than similar hearings in New York.
Union-allied defenders of teacher tenure here also say New York City’s intensive and controversial new teacher evaluation laws ensure quality among teachers, and point out that tenure reforms implemented under the Bloomberg administration led to a significant decline in teachers approved for tenure.
Sedlis said a potential legal complaint would likely focus on lengthening New York’s probationary teaching period and changing the way teacher seniority is used.
She said the city’s controversial absent teacher reserve, a pool of teachers without full-time jobs but who are still paid by the city, is “a clear example of tenure gone wrong.”
Beyond probationary periods, certification requirements and evaluations, education reform leaders are looking to take on larger long-term sticking points between their groups and New York’s city and state teachers’ union, including merit pay.
“It’s more about what’s missing,” Weisberg said when asked what he would like changed about New York’s tenure laws. “Laws should require that highly effective teachers be rewarded in terms of compensation.”
Merit pay would be anathema for the U.F.T., and fundamental disagreements about pay based on performance prevented the union from agreeing to a contract under the Bloomberg administration.
Sedlis agreed that legal action would be an opportunity for “parents and advocates to give every aspect of the law a fresh look.”
“Countless policies can be challenged,” she said, adding that a lawsuit could “force some real changes at the management and policy levels.”
They're going to sue over merit pay?
Is this the "craft" they plan to add to the New York case?
New York laws are different - it takes longer to get tenure, in NYC many teachers never get tenure at all and some have to wait well over the mandated three years to get it.
In addition, the APPR teacher evaluation system allows districts to fire teachers who come up "ineffective" two years in a row.
The argument that was used in California - "grossly ineffective" teachers cannot be fired without a long cumbersome process - doesn't hold water here.
So the deformers are looking to broaden the case, adding seniority rules around layoffs and performance pay to the mix.
They may be able to craft an argument around seniority, but I have a difficult time seeing them craft one around performance pay.
I'd like to see the judge in New York who agrees that students' civil rights have been violated because their teachers are ineligible for merit pay.
Often these deformers exist in a deform echo chamber where they say stuff that makes sense to everybody in their little circle, but once they get outside that circle, people look at them like they're crazy.
Arguing that students' civil rights have been violated because their teachers aren't eligible for merit pay is one of those cases.