21-2343 Maniscalco v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 15th day of October, two thousand twenty-one. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., ROBERT D. SACK, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges. _________________________________________ RACHEL MANISCALCO, EVELYN ARANCIO, DIANA SALOMON, CORINE LYNCH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 21-2343 NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MEISHA PORTER, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SCHOOLS CHANCELLOR OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CITY OF NEW YORK, BILL DE BLASIO, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, DAVID CHOKSHI, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________ FOR APPELLANTS: LOUIS M. GELORMINO (Mark J. Fonte, on the brief), F & G Legal Group, Staten Island, NY. FOR APPELLEES: SUSAN PAULSON (Richard Dearing, Devin Slack, on the brief), for Georgia M. Pestana, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Cogan, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that, for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thoughtful memorandum decision of September 23, 2021, the order entered on that date, in which the district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, is AFFIRMED. The case is remanded and shall proceed as the district court deems necessary or advisable. FOR THE COURT: Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 2