Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 1 of 49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LIBERIAN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF
CONNECTICUT, LOUISE MENSAH-SIEH, on behalf of
herself and her minor children B.D. and S.N.,
NATHANIEL SIEH, VICTOR SIEH, EMMANUEL
KAMARA, ASSUNTA NIMLEY-PHILLIPS, LAURA
SKRIP, RYAN BOYKO, ESTHER YALARTAI,
BISHOP HARMON YALARTAI, and DR. MARY JEAN
O, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
GOVERNOR DANNEL MALLOY, ACTING
)
COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH RAUL PINO, )
and FORMER COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH )
JEWEL MULLEN,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Civil Action No.:____

February 8, 2016

Plaintiffs Louise Mensah-Sieh, her minor children B.D. and S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor
Sieh, Emmanuel Kamara, Assunta Nimley-Phillips, Laura Skrip, Ryan Boyko, Esther Yalartai,
Bishop Harmon Yalartai, Dr. Mary Jean O, and the Liberian Community Association of
Connecticut, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, by and through their attorneys,
as and for their Complaint, allege the following on information and belief:
INTRODUCTION
The West African Ebola epidemic had reached its height by October 2014. In between
coverage of Connecticut’s close gubernatorial race, sensationalist news accounts stoked public
fear that travelers might bring Ebola across the ocean to our state. The Centers for Disease

1

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 2 of 49

Control and Prevention did not advise quarantining asymptomatic individuals returning from the
region, because decades of scientific research shows that asymptomatic individuals cannot
transmit Ebola. Yet, contrary to this this expert guidance and scientific evidence, Defendants
Governor Dannel Malloy and then-Commissioner of Public Health Dr. Jewel Mullen instituted a
policy and practice that authorized legally and scientifically unjustified quarantines of
asymptomatic U.S. residents arriving in Connecticut from an Ebola-affected country. None of
the Plaintiffs quarantined by Defendants Malloy and Mullen—asymptomatic Liberian
immigrants and public health workers—had been in contact with anyone with Ebola symptoms,
and at least one of them repeatedly tested negative for the virus. As Defendant Mullen’s press
spokesperson stated repeatedly in October 2014, Defendants understood that Plaintiffs were “not
sick and not a risk to public health.” Defendants nevertheless ordered their quarantine.
Defendants Malloy, Mullen, and their staff imprisoned residents in their homes for weeks
without adequate notice, a fair process to challenge their confinements, or provision of food and
other basic supplies. Defendants and their staff caused local police officers to be stationed
outside the homes of those quarantined and to monitor their movements. The police reprimanded
Liberian parents who had let their school-aged children open the door from their aunt’s basement
to play in her small backyard; the children did not step outside again until the end of the
quarantine three weeks later. Public health officials yelled at a quarantined student when she
tried to pick up a bag of food and tampons left on her fire escape by a classmate.
Even after state officials released the Liberian residents and public health workers, the
stigma created by the quarantines continued to affect them and their communities. Neighbors and
co-workers shunned Liberian immigrants living in Connecticut. Colleagues and administrators
told public health students who had traveled to Liberia to help stop the epidemic that they were

2

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 3 of 49

“selfish” for putting Connecticut at risk. Because quarantines accelerated stigma and hampered
the travel of healthcare workers, Connecticut’s policy undermined the urgent public health
response to Ebola.
None of this hardship was necessary. Defendants could have protected residents from
Ebola by means that did not violate state and federal law and cause undue stigma against
immigrant communities. To this day, the Governor has not revoked his emergency declaration
granting the Department of Public Health broad authority to quarantine asymptomatic
individuals. Right now, Connecticut residents are abroad in West Africa to help develop
emergency public health infrastructure, visit family, and develop transnational religious
connections. According to expert public health opinion, the risk of another Ebola outbreak in
West Africa is high. So too is the risk that Defendant Malloy and Defendant Raul Pino, who has
succeeded Defendant Mullen as Acting Commissioner of Public Health, will again overreact
under the Governor’s emergency declaration, which remains in effect, by subjecting Connecticut
residents to unjustified and unlawful quarantines. When Connecticut travelers return, they may
not be greeted as welcome neighbors but instead imprisoned in their own homes.
Eight individual Plaintiffs who were subjected to quarantine orders under threat of
imprisonment in October 2014 bring this action to remedy violations of the Fourteenth and
Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Article I of the Connecticut Constitution, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, state statutes, and common law
torts. Other Plaintiffs, who are in Liberia and will return to Connecticut imminently or who
intend to travel to Ebola-affected countries in West Africa in the future, seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated, against
Connecticut’s unlawful and scientifically unjustified quarantine practices, policies, and laws.

3

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 4 of 49

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This Court has jurisdiction of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and

2201 as this is a civil action arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. This
Court has jurisdiction over supplemental claims arising under Connecticut law pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a).
2.

Venue lies in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1391(b) because at least one defendant is a resident of the District of
Connecticut. Venue also lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) because a substantial
part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.
PARTIES
3.

Plaintiff LOUISE MENSAH-SIEH resides in Connecticut. She is the sister of

Plaintiff Nimley-Phillips and is married to Plaintiff Nathaniel Sieh. In October 2014, upon
arriving in Connecticut from Liberia, Defendant Mullen, as authorized by Defendant Malloy,
subjected her to quarantine. New to the country, she spent twenty days confined in her sister’s
basement, along with her quarantined husband and children.
4.

Plaintiffs B.D. and S.N. are minor children of Plaintiff Mensah-Sieh. They reside

in Connecticut. In October 2014, upon arriving in Connecticut from Liberia, Defendant Mullen,
as authorized by Defendant Malloy, subjected them to quarantine for twenty days in the
basement of Plaintiff Nimley-Phillips’ home.
5.

Plaintiff NATHANIEL SIEH resides in Connecticut and is married to Plaintiff

Mensah-Sieh. In October 2014, upon arriving in Connecticut from Liberia, Defendant Mullen, as
authorized by Defendant Malloy, subjected him to quarantine for twenty days in the basement of
Plaintiff Nimley-Phillips’ home.

4

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 5 of 49

6.

Plaintiff VICTOR SIEH resides in Connecticut and is the son of Plaintiff Sieh. In

October 2014, upon arriving in Connecticut from Liberia, Defendant Mullen, as authorized by
Defendant Malloy, subjected him to quarantine for twenty days in the basement of Plaintiff
Nimley-Phillips’ home.
7.

Plaintiff EMMANUEL KAMARA resides in Connecticut and is the son of

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh and Sieh. In October 2014, upon arriving in Connecticut from Liberia,
Defendant Mullen, as authorized by Defendant Malloy, subjected him to quarantine for twenty
days in the basement of Plaintiff Nimley-Phillips’ home.
8.

Plaintiff ASSUNTA NIMLEY-PHILLIPS has resided in Connecticut for

approximately twenty-five years. In October 2014, Defendant Mullen, as authorized by
Defendant Malloy, caused her to be ordered to be at home to receive multiple daily telephone
calls, take the temperatures three times daily of her six quarantined relatives, and in all respects
provide and care for her sister’s family while it was subjected to quarantine for twenty days in
Plaintiff Nimley-Phillips’ basement.
9.

Plaintiff LAURA SKRIP is a doctoral candidate at the Yale School of Public

Health and resides in New Haven, Connecticut. She returned from a trip to Liberia on October
11, 2014. On October 17, 2014, Defendant Mullen, as authorized by Defendant Malloy, issued a
quarantine order for Skrip dated October 10 through October 30, 2014. She is now in Liberia on
a public health and research trip and will return to Connecticut on February 28, 2016.
10.

Plaintiff RYAN BOYKO is a former doctoral candidate at the Yale School of

Public Health. He returned from a trip to Liberia on October 11, 2014. On October 17, 2014,
Defendant Mullen, as authorized by Defendant Malloy, issued a quarantine order for Boyko
dated October 10 through October 30. He presently resides in Austin, Texas.

5

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 6 of 49

11.

Plaintiff ESTHER YALARTAI is a resident of West Haven, Connecticut and is

presently in Liberia with her husband, Plaintiff Bishop Harmon Yalartai, for the Annual
Convention of the Faith Revival Temple Churches. She will return to Connecticut on February
20, 2016.
12.

Plaintiff BISHOP HARMON YALARTAI is a resident of West Haven,

Connecticut and the religious leader of the Faith Revival Temple Churches, which is comprised
of six churches and four preaching points in Liberia, and one church in West Haven. He is
presently in Liberia with his wife, Plaintiff Esther Yalartai, for the Annual Convention of the
Faith Revival Temple Churches. He will return to Connecticut on February 20, 2016.
13.

Plaintiff DR. MARY JEAN O is a resident of Hamden, Connecticut and a

physician specializing in emergency medicine. She volunteered as a clinical coordinator at Ebola
Holding Units (“EHU”) in Sierra Leone from December 2014 to February 2015. She will return
to West Africa in the case of future outbreaks of Ebola or other infectious diseases, to assist in
the development of the region’s healthcare infrastructure and to teach emergency medicine.
14.

Plaintiff LIBERIAN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT

(“LCAC”) is a non-profit, non-partisan membership organization headquartered in Hartford,
Connecticut. LCAC’s mission is to contribute to and enhance the social and economic
development of the Liberian community in Connecticut, as well as to promote Liberian cultural
heritage. Plaintiffs Bishop Yalartai, Esther Yalartai, and Nimley-Phillips are members of LCAC.
Members of LCAC, including the Yalartais, regularly travel between Liberia and Connecticut for
professional, religious, humanitarian, and personal reasons.
15.

Defendant DANNEL P. MALLOY is Governor of the State of Connecticut.

Defendant Malloy issued a declaration of public health emergency on October 7, 2014 and

6

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 7 of 49

caused the quarantine of Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, her minor children B.D. and S.N., Nathaniel
Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip, and Boyko. Defendant Malloy’s emergency declaration
remains in effect. Defendant Malloy is sued in his official capacity.
16.

Defendant RAUL PINO is the Acting Commissioner of the Connecticut

Department of Public Health (“DPH”). He is sued in his official capacity.
17.

Defendant JEWEL MULLEN was the Commissioner of the Connecticut

Department of Public Health from January 2011 to December 2015. As authorized by Defendant
Malloy, she signed the quarantine orders of Plaintiffs Skrip and Boyko, directed the quarantine
of Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, her minor children B.D. and S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, and
Kamara, and caused the oral orders to be delivered to Plaintiff Nimley-Phillips. Defendant
Mullen is sued in her individual capacity.
FACTS
2014 Ebola Crisis and Connecticut Response
18.

On March 23, 2014, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) announced an

outbreak of Ebola in West Africa. After the first confirmed case in March 2014, Ebola spread
rapidly throughout Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone.
19.

Ebola is caused by infection with one of the species of the Ebola virus. It is spread

through direct physical contact with the bodily fluids of a symptomatic person, the body of a
person who has died from Ebola, or objects contaminated with the virus, such as used needles.
Ebola cannot be spread through environmental exposure (e.g. air, water) as is possible with other
infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis and cholera. Symptoms include fever, headache, joint
and muscle aches, diarrhea, and vomiting. The incubation period (the time from infection to
onset of symptoms) is usually four to nine days but can range from two to twenty-one days.

7

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 8 of 49

20.

By fall 2014, doctors were diagnosing hundreds of new cases each week in West

Africa. Over the twenty-two months of the epidemic, there were more than 28,000 cases of Ebola
in these three countries and more than 11,000 deaths.
21.

In response to the epidemic, thousands of volunteers from around the world

traveled to Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone to provide critical medical assistance and share
other forms of technical expertise. Community organizations, including Plaintiff LCAC, and
churches run by Liberian immigrants in the United States, like Plaintiff Bishop Yalaratai’s,
raised funds to support humanitarian aid for Liberians confronting the crisis.
22.

Despite the considerable number of volunteers and staff traveling to and from

these countries, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) noted that there were
fewer than forty cases outside of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone during the crisis.
23.

On August 22, 2014, the CDC publicly released guidance for monitoring people

potentially exposed to Ebola. For asymptomatic individuals returning from West Africa with “no
risk” or “low risk” of exposure, the CDC recommended only self-monitoring or active
monitoring for twenty-one days and recommended no movement restrictions or quarantine.
24.

Even for individuals in the “high risk” exposure level category—such as those

who had had direct, unprotected contact with the bodily fluids of an Ebola patient or a dead
body— the CDC only recommended “controlled movement” for twenty-one days so long as such
individuals were asymptomatic. Under controlled movement, individuals had to inform public
health officials of their intended travel and avoid long-distance public transportation.
25.

In October 2014, Defendant Malloy was actively campaigning to be re-elected as

Governor of Connecticut, for the election to be held on November 4, 2014. Public polling and
media accounts at the time described the gubernatorial race as extremely close.

8

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 9 of 49

26.

On October 7, 2014, Defendant Malloy issued an order declaring a public health

emergency for the State of Connecticut (hereinafter “Emergency Declaration”). The legal effect
of this declaration under state law, as stated in quarantine orders later issued, was to authorize
Defendant Mullen, the Connecticut Commissioner of Public Health, to direct the isolation or
quarantine of individuals whom she “reasonably believe[d] to have been exposed to, infected
with, or otherwise at risk of passing the Ebola virus.”
27.

According to the CDC, “isolation” is the separation of individuals who are sick

with a contagious disease from those who are not sick. “Quarantine” is the separation of
asymptomatic individuals exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick.
28.

On October 8, 2014, the CDC announced a safety plan, in collaboration with the

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), to protect the United States from an Ebola outbreak.
29.

Under the plan, DHS directed persons entering the United States from Guinea,

Liberia, and Sierra Leone to one of five ports of entry where it undertook specialized screenings.
Trained staff observed travelers for signs of illness, asked them a series of health and exposure
questions, and took their temperatures. CDC quarantine station public health officers evaluated
travelers with fever or other symptoms, as well as any travelers whose health questionnaires
revealed possible Ebola exposure.
30.

When officers determined that passengers required further evaluation or

monitoring, federal officers referred those travelers to the appropriate state or local public health
authority. Travelers with no symptoms, fever, or a known history of exposure received health
information for self-monitoring and were approved to exit the airport.
31.

On October 16, 2014, Defendants Malloy and Mullen established statewide Ebola

response policies (“DPH Plan”) that the Governor’s Office described as “more stringent than the

9

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 10 of 49

guidelines thus far issued by the Federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” All
asymptomatic individuals who had traveled to affected areas or been in contact with an infected
individual were to be quarantined at home for twenty-one days, despite the fact that
asymptomatic individuals cannot transmit Ebola.
32.

By contrast, the August 22, 2014 CDC guidance, the federal public health

recommendations for best practices at the time, stated that states should impose “no movement
restrictions” for asymptomatic individuals who had been “in a country in which an EVD
[(“Ebola Virus Disease”)] outbreak occurred within the past twenty-one days and ha[d] no
exposure.” The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community at the time was, and
remains, that asymptomatic individuals cannot transmit Ebola and do not require quarantine.
33.

Defendants Mullen and Malloy knew that the “[p]eople under quarantine [we]re

not sick and not a risk to public health,” as a DPH spokesman repeatedly stated in October 2014,
but nevertheless imposed and maintained their quarantine under the DPH Plan. (Exhibit A).
Defendant Mullen approved this statement.
34.

Defendants Mullen and Malloy knew that their policy and practice of quarantine

was retrograde and ill-suited to contemporary public health challenges. In an email message,
DPH epidemiologist Matt Cartter described Connecticut’s legal definition of quarantine as “very
19th century, making 21st century quarantine options difficult to implement.”
35.

On October 27, 2014, after Defendants had already quarantined Plaintiffs

Mensah-Sieh, her minor children R.M and D.M, Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip, and
Boyko, Defendants Malloy and Mullen announced new state policies for Ebola response
(“Revised DPH Plan”). The Revised DPH Plan imposed “mandatory active monitoring” for
asymptomatic travelers arriving in Connecticut from Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, but still

10

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 11 of 49

contemplated “quarantine for individuals based on risk factors.” Revised guidance from the CDC
released that same day did not recommend quarantine for any asymptomatic individuals and
recommended “no restrictions on travel, work, public conveyances, or congregate gatherings” for
asymptomatic individuals, like previously-quarantined Plaintiffs, who had been in an affected
country but had no known exposure.
36.

The Revised DPH Plan also required DPH to conduct an individualized risk

assessment for such travelers before deciding whether to take steps beyond active mandatory
monitoring. Local health department staff or DPH epidemiologists were to interview travelers
about their travel history and potential exposure to Ebola. Epidemiological experts at DPH would
assess this information and its quality before making a decision. On information and belief,
Defendants failed to reconsider Plaintiffs’ quarantine orders under the Revised DPH Plan, and
required Plaintiffs to remain in quarantine for an additional three to twelve days.
37.

On November 7, 2015, December 29, 2015, and January 14, 2016, the WHO

declared Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia Ebola-free, respectively.
38.

According to expert public health opinion, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea

remain at high risk of future Ebola outbreaks and this area could potentially face another large
outbreak.
39.

According to the DPH Ebola Preparedness and Response webpage, last modified

January 7, 2016, “Governor Malloy’s declaration on October 7, 2014 of a public health
emergency for Connecticut for the duration of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa remains in
effect.”
40.

Because Defendant Malloy’s Emergency Declaration remains in effect,

Defendants Malloy and Pino reserve the power to exceed the guidance of the CDC and the

11

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 12 of 49

consensus of the scientific community by imposing “more stringent restrictions” on
asymptomatic individuals, including quarantine.
41.

Despite the evolution from the DPH Plan to the Revised DPH Plan to current

policies, Defendants have maintained a policy, practice, custom, and usage of failing to impose
the least restrictive means to prevent Ebola infections; failing to base their decisions in science
and evidence rather than politics and fear; failing to give quarantined people timely notice in
writing, or ever; failing to affirmatively seek judicial review, where the state would bear the
burden to establish the necessity of quarantine by clear and convincing evidence; and failing to
provide for the welfare and safety of those subject to quarantine (hereinafter “Defendants’
quarantine policies and practice”).
42.

Pursuant to Defendants’ quarantine policies and practice, and regardless of the

shift from the DPH Plan to the Revised DPH Plan to current policy, Defendants have repeatedly
maintained quarantines of individuals they knew “[we]re not sick and not a risk to public health,”
and reserve their right to do so in the future.
43.

Because the risk of a future Ebola outbreak in West Africa is high, because

Defendants reserve the authority to issue scientifically unjustified and unlawful quarantine orders
pursuant to Defendant Malloy’s unrescinded emergency declaration, and because it is highly
likely that Defendants will again overreact to a future Ebola outbreak, Plaintiffs and other
present and future travelers from Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone are at real and immediate
risk of being subject to Defendants’ quarantine policies and practice.
Quarantine of Public Health Students Boyko and Skrip
44.

In September 2014, after encouragement from their Ph.D. advisor at Yale

University, Plaintiffs Boyko and Skrip traveled to Liberia to assist the Liberian Ministry of

12

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 13 of 49

Health and Social Welfare with data analysis of the 2014 outbreak. Boyko and Skrip hoped that
their skills in mathematics, data analysis, and technology would aid the project of digitally
tracking Ebola cases in Liberia.
45.

Boyko and Skrip left John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on

September 17, 2014 and arrived in Monrovia, Liberia on September 18, 2014.
46.

While in Liberia, Boyko and Skrip volunteered with the Ministry of Health and

Social Welfare to create a computerized Ebola-case tracking system. During their stay, they
developed a cloud-based Android app that improved contact tracing of Ebola cases in Liberia
and provided a computer interface for visualizing this data.
47.

Boyko and Skrip did not volunteer in a healthcare capacity and did not treat

patients. They did not have contact with any Ebola-symptomatic individuals.
48.

While in Liberia, Boyko and Skrip worked in the Ministry of Health and Social

Welfare’s government building. They ate breakfast and dinner at their hotel and brought food
from the hotel to work with them for lunch. They were transported in a private car between the
hotel and the government building in order to avoid contact with people with Ebola symptoms.
49.

Boyko and Skrip took numerous additional precautions while in Liberia,

including observing a “no touching” policy, not using public transportation, frequently cleaning
their shoes by stepping on foam blocks soaked in chlorine solution, and frequently washing their
hands with sanitizer or chlorine solution.
50.

Boyko and Skrip planned to return to the United States on October 3, 2014, but

Boyko developed a minor cough that he believed to be a lingering symptom of an illness he had
prior to leaving for Liberia. Fearful that any display of sickness en route could result in panic and
even diversion of the airplane, and upon the advice of the Yale Health Center, Boyko decided to

13

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 14 of 49

delay his return. Skrip felt fine but decided to remain with Boyko in Liberia.
51.

Boyko felt better after approximately two days, at which point Boyko and Skrip

began planning their return to Connecticut. As a condition of compensating Boyko and Skrip for
a replacement flight, Yale’s travel medical insurance company required Boyko to be tested for
Ebola by a medical professional.
52.

In the course of revising their travel plans, Boyko and Skrip had numerous

communications with Yale faculty and staff.
53.

On October 6, 2014, Boyko tested negative for Ebola. He received a handwritten

letter confirming the negative test from a United States Army colonel supervising the testing lab.
Shortly thereafter, Boyko and Skrip scheduled a return flight to the United States.
54.

Before leaving, Boyko and Skrip learned that one person who sometimes spent

time at their hotel, a freelance cameraman, later developed symptoms of Ebola. Out of an
abundance of caution, Boyko and Skrip spoke with local CDC agents to be sure that they were
not at risk as a result. The CDC representatives assured Boyko and Skrip that this was a “no risk”
interaction as the cameraman had not become contagious until after the last time they saw him.
55.

Early in the morning of October 11, 2014, Boyko and Skrip departed Monrovia,

Liberia by plane. Upon arrival at John F. Kennedy International Airport on October 11, 2014,
they underwent the CDC entry screening procedures for Ebola. Both Boyko and Skrip were ruled
medically fit under those procedures. Officials of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
allowed them both to enter the United States.
56.

DHS or CDC officials alerted Defendant Mullen or her staff of the return of

Boyko and Skrip, pursuant to the CDC guidelines regarding referral to local public health
departments.

14

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 15 of 49

57.

After returning to New Haven that day, Boyko and Skrip monitored themselves

for symptoms of Ebola. As part of their monitoring efforts, Boyko and Skrip took their
temperatures twice a day and emailed results to staff at the Yale Health Center.
58.

On the morning of October 15, Boyko’s temperature rose to 100.1 degrees

Fahrenheit. Boyko informed a member of Yale Health. Although he felt fine, the Yale Health
Center and Yale-New Haven Hospital jointly decided to transport him from his home to the
hospital.
59.

At approximately 11 p.m. on October 15, an ambulance arrived to take Boyko to

Yale-New Haven Hospital.
60.

On information and belief, Yale Health, Yale-New Haven Hospital, or other Yale

officials informed state and city public health officials of Boyko’s hospital admission.
61.

After Boyko was admitted to the hospital, doctors took samples of his blood and

sent them to the CDC and the Massachusetts State Public Health laboratory for Ebola testing.
62.

While in the Medical Intensive Care Unit, Boyko’s fever subsided.

63.

On October 16, 2014, the day after Boyko arrived at the hospital, Plaintiff Skrip

received a call from the City of New Haven Health Department’s epidemiologist, Amanda
Durante. Durante informed Skrip that the City of New Haven would begin “mandatory active
monitoring” of Skrip. This meant the City would call twice a day at which time Skrip was
required to take and report her temperature.
64.

Later that day, October 16, 2014, Boyko’s first U.S. test results returned negative

for Ebola.
65.

Despite Boyko’s negative test result, Defendant Mullen, amid a frenzy of media

attention to Ebola abroad and the perceived threat at home, caused the delivery of an isolation

15

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 16 of 49

order for Boyko, authorized under Defendant Malloy’s Emergency Declaration and Defendants
Malloy and Mullen’s DPH Plan. The order required Boyko to remain in hospital isolation for
twenty-one days. It did not mention his negative test result, nor did it include information about
how he could legally challenge his isolation.
66.

On October 17, the CDC confirmed that Boyko’s blood tested negative for Ebola.

67.

Upon receiving the blood test result, doctors at Yale-New Haven Hospital told

Boyko that he was healthy, without symptoms, and had no reason to take any kind of further
precautions. His doctors removed their protective gear and shook his hand. They joked that
Boyko was the only person in New Haven they could definitively say did not have Ebola.
68.

Shortly thereafter, on October 17, Defendant Mullen issued a quarantine order,

requiring that Boyko be confined in his home for twenty-one days, or up to and including
October 30. The order was backdated to October 10 and signed by Defendant Mullen. Defendant
Mullen, as authorized by Defendant Malloy, caused the order to be delivered to Yale-New Haven
hospital, and upon information and belief, directed medical staff there to serve the order on
Boyko. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit B.
69.

The quarantine order did not mention that Boyko had tested negative for Ebola

three times.
70.

The order stated that an individual who violates his or her quarantine may be

subject to sanctions, including imprisonment and fines.
71.

Late in the afternoon of October 18, a plainclothes hospital security officer drove

Boyko to his apartment in New Haven in an unmarked car.
72.

On October 17, 2014, on the same day Defendant Mullen signed Boyko’s

quarantine order, Defendant Mullen also signed an order subjecting Skrip to a mandatory

16

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 17 of 49

quarantine. The order was backdated to October 10. On that date, Defendant Mullen, as
authorized by Defendant Malloy, caused Durante and staff from the office of Defendant Malloy
to telephone Skrip to inform her that she was quarantined.
73.

On that joint call, Defendants Malloy and Mullen caused Durante and Defendant

Malloy’s staff to state that Skrip was forbidden from leaving her apartment. At the time of her
quarantine, Defendants failed to provide or cause others to provide Skrip notice of her rights,
information about how to challenge the quarantine, or a written notice of quarantine.
74.

Skrip informed Maria Bouffard, the Director of Emergency Management at Yale

University, that she had never received a quarantine order. On or around October 22, 2014, five
days after Defendant Mullen caused Skrip to be informed orally that she was subject to
quarantine, and twelve days after the effective date of the order, someone from the City of New
Haven provided a copy of the order to Skrip. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit C.
75.

The order stated that an individual who violates his or her quarantine may be

subject to sanctions, including imprisonment and fines.
76.

On information and belief, Defendant Mullen, as authorized by Defendant

Malloy, through the State’s quarantine order, required the New Haven Police Department
(“NHPD”) to enforce the quarantines against Boyko and Skrip. NHPD stationed a police officer
outside the apartments of both Boyko and Skrip twenty-four hours per day, during Defendants’
quarantine of them. On information and belief, at least one NHPD officer told Skrip’s neighbors
that an individual with Ebola was living in her building.
77.

Defendants Malloy and Mullen failed to direct officials to supply the homes of

Boyko and Skrip with sufficient food and other essential supplies for the duration of their
quarantines, as required by law.

17

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 18 of 49

78.

No state or city agency provided assistance to ensure Boyko or Skrip had

adequate food, toiletries, and other life necessities. Neither Skrip nor Boyko was able to shop for
food or other essentials after returning from Liberia and before being placed under quarantine.
79.

Ryan was able to eat only because Bouffard delivered Visa gift cards that enabled

him to purchase needed supplies. Under orders from Defendants, NHPD allowed Boyko to step
outside to pick up such deliveries, but only if he immediately returned to his apartment.
80.

After an NHPD officer confronted a friend who dropped off food and sanitary

supplies on Skrip’s fire escape, Skrip was too afraid to order additional food with the Visa gift
cards provided by Yale.
81.

By their actions, Defendants transformed the homes of Skrip and Boyko into their

prisons. Skrip and Boyko were unable to leave and police officers constantly stood watch outside
their doors.
82.

While in quarantine, Boyko became depressed. He was cut off from family,

friends, and colleagues.
83.

During quarantine, Boyko was unable to spend time with his young son, of whom

Boyko shares custody. Even following Boyko’s quarantine, his former wife had concerns about
allowing him to spend time with his son, due to her perception that the State considered Boyko a
danger to others.
84.

Boyko was also unable to see his girlfriend, who the quarantine order prohibited

from entering their shared apartment.
85.

Boyko was unable to keep up with his professional and educational obligations.

He had to cancel plans to present at an international public health conference, and fell behind on
his progress towards his degree. Boyko was also unable to continue his paid employment as a

18

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 19 of 49

teaching assistant at Yale College and as an employee of the Global Health Justice Partnership.
86.

Despite implementation of the Revised DPH Plan on October 27, Defendant

Mullen did not review or cause the review of the quarantine orders against Boyko or Skrip. On
information and belief, Plaintiffs never benefited from any such individualized assessment by
Defendant Mullen, local health department staff, or an epidemiologist from DPH.
87.

Defendant Mullen, as authorized by Defendant Malloy, originally ordered Boyko

quarantined through October 30, 2014. However, Boyko requested to be released a day early
given that the state’s power to quarantine, absent a renewed order, is limited to 20 days. Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 19a-131b(c).
88.

Shortly thereafter, Boyko received an email from state officials forwarded to

Boyko by Bouffard saying the quarantine would end at 12:01 a.m. on October 30, 2014. Late in
the evening of October 29, 2014, NHPD withdrew their officers stationed outside the homes of
Boyko and Skrip, and at 12:01 a.m. on October 30, 2014, Defendants Mullen and Malloy
released Boyko and Skrip from quarantine.
89.

Even after the quarantine ended, Boyko continued to grapple with the after effects

of the isolation and quarantine.
90.

Shortly after the quarantine, Boyko and his girlfriend broke up, in significant part

due to the stress of the quarantine. His relationship with his former wife has been strained since
their custody disagreement during the quarantine.
91.

Boyko has experienced depression and social aloofness from the lack of contact

he experienced during quarantine. In spring 2015, Boyko sought psychological care to cope with
the emotional impact of the quarantine. In 2015, Boyko left his assigned lab and dropped out of
the Ph.D. program at Yale University.

19

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 20 of 49

92.

Skrip also grappled with many adverse consequences during and after the

quarantine. The quarantine interfered with her graduate research work and her research assistant
position at Yale University. The quarantine also prevented performance of her duties as a
volunteer co-director for a department of the Haven Free Clinic. The experience of the
quarantine strained and continues to strain Skrip’s professional and volunteer relationships.
93.

Defendants Malloy and Mullen knew or should have known that their quarantine

of Boyko and Skrip was scientifically unjustified and not the least restrictive means to protect
public health; that Defendants failed to provide essential supplies to Boyko and Skrip; that
Defendants imposed the quarantine orders without a state-initiated judicial probable cause
hearing before or immediately after Defendants seized Boyko and Skrip; and that the quarantine
of Skrip was instituted without timely notice.
94.

Defendants Malloy and Mullen knew or should have known that their quarantine

of Boyko and Skrip discriminated against Plaintiffs due to Plaintiffs’ perceived risk of illness by
severely diminishing their everyday life activities including family relations, social contacts,
work options, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment.
95.

Defendant Mullen knew or should have known that her reckless conduct in

ordering and carrying out Boyko and Skrip’s quarantines would unlawfully detain and confine
them, cause their reasonable apprehension of force, interrupt their ability to perform their work,
and inflict emotional distress on them.
Quarantine of Mensah-Sieh Family
96.

Plaintiff Nimley-Phillips came from Liberia to the United States in the 1980s,

when she moved to Connecticut to pursue a Masters degree. She returned permanently several
years later and has resided in Connecticut ever since.

20

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 21 of 49

97.

Plaintiff Mensah-Sieh (who is the sister of Nimley-Phillips), her husband Plaintiff

Nathaniel Sieh, and their four children Emmanuel Kamara, Victor Sieh, B.D., and S.N., lived in
Sinkor, Monrovia in Liberia until October 2014. In Sinkor, Nathaniel Sieh worked in
immigration for the government and Mensah-Sieh worked for Global Bank and at St. Joseph’s
Catholic Hospital.
98.

Prior to the Ebola outbreak, the Mensah-Sieh family applied to the U.S. Diversity

Visa Lottery and in June 2013 learned that they would be awarded visas. Plaintiffs were excited
by the opportunity to emigrate to the U.S. to improve their lives and career prospects and to
provide educational opportunities for their children.
99.

To make arrangements, the Mensah-Sieh family went to the U.S. Embassy, which

in turn sent them to St. Joseph’s Catholic Hospital to undergo a series of health tests. The family
paid fees in order to have the necessary tests and paperwork completed. The officials in charge
of the Mensah-Siehs’ health records sealed these records, and the family never saw the results.
100.

Based upon their health tests and other paperwork, the relevant DHS and U.S.

Embassy officials approved the Mensah-Sieh family to leave Liberia for the U.S. in fall 2014.
101.

The Mensah-Sieh family left Liberia on Friday, October 17, 2014 and arrived at

John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on Saturday, October 18, 2014.
102.

Upon deplaning, DHS officials took the family into a separate room, away from

other travelers, and questioned them for about an hour. The officials examined and took the
family’s health-related documentation, which the family never received back. The officials asked
the family about their travel plans, their contacts in Liberia, and their U.S. address.
103.

At the airport, neither DHS nor CDC officials provided the Mensah-Sieh family

with any information, written or oral, related to quarantine. The officials did not instruct the

21

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 22 of 49

Mensah-Sieh family to monitor any symptoms or check their temperatures.
104.

DHS or CDC officials notified Connecticut state and municipal public health

officials of the arrival of the Mensah-Sieh family on October 18, 2014.
105.

When the DHS officials at the airport allowed the Mensah-Sieh family to leave,

the family walked out to be picked up at the curb. Nimley-Phillips was waiting for them, as
planned, with a large van.
106.

Nimley-Phillips drove the Mensah-Sieh family to her house.

107.

From Saturday, October 18 until Monday, October 20, neither Nimley-Phillips

nor the Mensah-Sieh family received any quarantine order, written or oral.
108.

Nimley-Phillips had heard from others in the West African community that those

traveling from countries affected by Ebola were not generally supposed to leave the house or
have contact with others for a period of time to ensure that they were not ill. To that end, the
family stayed close to Nimley-Phillips’ house after they arrived.
109.

The morning after they arrived, Emmanuel Kamara, Victor Sieh, B.D., and S.N.

went outside into Nimley-Phillips’ yard to see the surroundings and to take pictures of their new
life to send back to friends in Liberia. While outside, the brothers noticed that the next-door
neighbor called her child in from the backyard and looked at them in a frightened manner.
110.

Upon information and belief, the neighbors called the police. Shortly after the

children had gone out into the yard, Nimley-Phillips received a phone call from an unidentified
individual informing her that the family was not allowed outside. The caller did not instruct
Nimley-Phillips that the family was under a quarantine order.
111.

On Monday, October 20, a woman who identified herself as Maureen Lillis, West

Haven Director of Public Health, called Nimley-Phillips to inform her of the quarantine of the

22

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 23 of 49

Mensah-Sieh family. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mullen, pursuant to DPH’s pattern
and practice, ordered the quarantine and caused Lillis to communicate this information.
112.

On this call, Lillis stated that the Mensah-Sieh family was not allowed to leave

the house for twenty-one days and that Nimley-Phillips was required to monitor the Mensah-Sieh
family’s health by asking them if they exhibited any symptoms and taking each family member’s
temperature three times per day. Lillis informed Nimley-Phillips that a city health official would
call her three times daily to inquire about the family’s health information. Lillis stated that she
knew Nimley-Phillips “had [her] hands full” with the family, or words to that effect.
113.

When Nimley-Phillips asked if the City or State would provide equipment to help

her monitor the Mensah-Sieh family’s health, Lillis said they would provide a thermometer. But
Nimley-Phillips never received any health equipment from Defendants or the City. Instead, she
purchased a thermometer, Clorox, rubber gloves, and other supplies. When she learned that an
infrared thermometer would be more hygienic, Nimley-Phillips purchased a second thermometer.
114.

Following the phone call, Defendants or their staff directed the West Haven

Police Department (“WHPD”) to monitor Nimley-Phillips’ house to enforce the quarantine of the
Mensah-Sieh family. The WHPD was stationed outside the home twenty-four hours per day,
seven days a week. Defendants caused WHPD to prevent the Mensah-Sieh family from leaving
Nimley-Phillips’ house and anyone except Nimley-Phillips and her adult daughter from entering.
115.

Defendant Mullen, as authorized by Defendant Malloy, caused Helen Johnson, a

West Haven nurse, to call Nimley-Phillips three times a day to collect health information on the
Mensah-Sieh family.
116.

Defendants Mullen and Malloy never served or caused to be served any written

quarantine order on the Mensah-Sieh family, nor did they serve the family with any other written

23

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 24 of 49

information about quarantine practices or the family’s right to judicial review of the order.
117.

Defendants Malloy and Mullen and their staffs failed to instruct Lillis or any other

official to inform Nimley-Phillips or the Mensah-Sieh family on the October 20 phone call or in
any subsequent communication of their right to challenge the quarantine order or how the order
could be challenged.
118.

Defendants Malloy and Mullen failed to cause Nimley-Phillips and the Mensah-

Sieh family to receive written notice of the quarantine order. Defendants Malloy and Mullen
failed to cause Nimley-Phillips and the Mensah-Sieh family to receive written information about
the parameters of the quarantine or best practices.
119.

During the twenty-one days of quarantine, up to and including November 10,

2014, the six members of the Mensah-Sieh family stayed in a single room in Nimley-Phillips’
basement. The family slept two on a couch, two on an air mattress, and two in a bed. The family
was constantly cold in the poorly insulated basement, heated only by small space heaters.
Sometimes, all six would huddle in the bed together, under blankets, to keep warm.
120.

Because they were cold, the family could not generally open the windows for

fresh air. The door that connected the basement to the upstairs living areas of Nimley-Phillips’
house remained closed. At meal times, Nimley-Phillips would leave food outside the door so that
the family could bring food downstairs to eat.
121.

Nimley-Phillips purchased food and prepared meals for the Mensah-Sieh family

for the duration of their quarantine. Defendants Malloy and Mullen did not instruct anyone to
provide food for the quarantined family or to reimburse Nimley-Phillips for these expenses.
122.

Bishop Yalartai and one of Nimley-Phillips’ neighbors tried on several occasions

to bring milk and bread for the family, but the WHPD police, acting under Defendant Mullen’s

24

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 25 of 49

order to enforce the quarantine, denied the Bishop and neighbor entry to the home.
123.

Each time Nimley-Phillips and her adult daughter entered and exited their home,

the police officers stationed outside pursuant to Defendants’ order to enforce the quarantine
would question them about where they were going and check their identification. At night, the
police officers would shine lights on Nimley-Phillips and her daughter when they entered and
left the house. Nimley-Phillips was frightened by the bright lights and felt as though the police
were treating her like a criminal.
124.

On at least one occasion, the WHPD officers, acting under Defendants’ order to

enforce the quarantine, detained Nimley-Phillips on her way back into her house. The WHPD
officer on duty called the WHPD station to make sure that Nimley-Phillips was approved to enter
her own home.
125.

The WHPD police stationed outside Nimley-Phillips’ home, acting under

Defendants’ order to enforce the quarantine, prevented anyone other than Nimley-Phillips and
her daughter from entering the house. When Nimley-Phillips’ daughter ordered pizza for the
Mensah-Sieh children, the police told her that the paper money she handled and brought from
inside the house was “contaminated.”
126.

Despite implementation of the Revised DPH Plan on October 27, Defendants

Mullen and Malloy did not review or cause the review of the quarantine orders against members
of the Mensah-Sieh family. Plaintiffs never benefited from any individualized determination by
Defendant Mullen, local health department staff, or an epidemiologist from DPH.
Effects of the Mensah-Sieh Family Quarantine on Nimley-Phillips
127.

Defendants Mullen and Malloy caused Lillis to communicate to Nimley-Phillips

over the phone that she must monitor the Mensah-Sieh family’s health. Defendants Mullen and

25

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 26 of 49

Malloy also caused Nurse Johnson to enforce that direction by calling Nimley-Phillips three
times each day to collect health information on the Mensah-Sieh family.
128.

Because Defendant Mullen, as authorized by Defendant Malloy, caused WHPD

police officers to prevent anyone other than Nimley-Phillips and her daughter from entering the
house, no one else could help care for the Mensah-Sieh family for the period of quarantine. As a
result, Defendants caused Nimley-Phillips to carry out the quarantine of the Mensah-Sieh family,
including feeding and monitoring the health of the family.
129.

Defendants Malloy and Mullen failed to provide or cause others to provide

Nimley-Phillips with any medical equipment or disinfectant to carry out her obligations to
monitor the Mensah-Sieh family’s health or to keep herself safe.
130.

As a result, Defendants caused Nimley-Phillips to incur out of pocket expenses to

maintain the quarantine of the Mensah-Sieh family. Nimley-Phillips purchased cleaning supplies,
including Clorox bleach and rubber gloves, to prevent herself and her adult daughter from
potentially becoming ill.
131.

Nimley-Phillips also purchased a standard thermometer and a more expensive

infrared thermometer in order to comply with the requirements Defendants Mullen and Malloy
caused Lillis to communicate to Nimley-Phillips to take the temperature of each member of the
Mensah-Sieh family three times daily.
132.

During the period of quarantine, Defendants Malloy and Mullen caused Nimley-

Phillips to purchase and prepare meals for the six members of the Mensah-Sieh family.
133.

Defendant Mullen knew or should have known that her reckless conduct in

causing Nimley-Phillips to carry out the quarantine of the Mensah-Sieh family unreasonably
detained and confined Nimley-Philipps, caused her reasonable apprehension of force, and caused

26

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 27 of 49

her to perform actions, including taking temperature of the Mensah-Sieh family and incurring
out-of-pocket expenses.
Effects of the Quarantine on the Mensah-Sieh family
134.

Defendant Mullen recklessly caused the Mensah-Sieh family to be scared,

embarrassed, and sad by authorizing and ordering the unjustified quarantine.
135.

Defendant Mullen recklessly caused Mensah-Sieh to be treated like a criminal:

locked away so that she could not do harm to society. She knew that she was healthy, but she
constantly worried that Defendants would take her or her children away if they exhibited any
symptoms, which included minor ailments that could be induced by stress, such as an upset
stomach or loose stools. During the twenty-one days of quarantine, Mensah-Sieh felt that she
would have preferred to stay in Liberia because the conditions of her family’s confinement were
so uncomfortable and the duration was so long.
136.

Defendant Mullen recklessly caused Nathaniel Sieh to feel stigmatized and

embarrassed to be confined to the basement. DHS agents had screened him at John F. Kennedy
International Airport in New York, so he knew he was not sick. Nathaniel Sieh felt ashamed
being kept in the house as though he were ill or someone who should be avoided.
137.

Defendant Mullen recklessly caused the Mensah-Sieh family to suffer because

their children were frightened.
138.

Defendant Mullen recklessly caused B.D. and S.N. to become concerned that they

were sick or that something was wrong with them because they were kept in quarantine.
139.

Defendant Mullen recklessly caused the Mensah-Sieh family to suffer additional

physical discomfort because their activity and movements were constrained during the
quarantine. All members of the family felt stiff and uncomfortable because they could not

27

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 28 of 49

exercise or move around outdoors during the three weeks of quarantine.
140.

Defendant Mullen recklessly prevented Nathaniel Sieh from beginning his search

for employment during the duration of the quarantine.
141.

After Defendants’ quarantine of the Mensah-Sieh family expired, Nathaniel Sieh

applied for jobs immediately. Because of media coverage of Ebola and the quarantine of a family
of six, Nathaniel Sieh believes that potential employers had the health scare in their minds when,
during interviews, they learned he had just immigrated from Liberia.
142.

Defendant Mullen recklessly prevented Mensah-Sieh from beginning her search

for employment during the duration of the quarantine. She was not able to find work until
February or March 2015.
143.

Defendant Mullen recklessly prevented Victor Sieh, B.D., and S.N. from enrolling

in school until their quarantine had ended. As a result, the children enrolled at school
approximately a month after their arrival in the U.S.
144.

Before B.D. and Victor Sieh enrolled in school, an announcement was made at

their high school about Ebola and the local quarantine. When B.D. and Victor arrived at school
following the quarantine, their peers knew about the quarantine and also knew that the MensahSiehs were new immigrants from Liberia. Classmates asked B.D. if he had been quarantined.
145.

Defendant Mullen recklessly prevented Mensah-Sieh, her minor children B.D.

and S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, and Kamara from forming social contacts with the local
Liberian-American community in Connecticut. Defendant Mullen recklessly prevented B.D.,
S.N., Victor Sieh, and Kamara from meeting children and young adults and developing
friendships in their new country.
146.

Defendants Malloy and Mullen knew or should have known that their quarantine

28

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 29 of 49

of the Mensah-Sieh family was scientifically unjustified and not the least restrictive means to
protect public health; that Defendants failed to provide essential supplies to the Mensah-Sieh
family; that Defendants imposed the quarantine orders without a state-initiated judicial probable
cause hearing before or immediately after Defendants seized the Mensah-Sieh family; and that
the quarantine of the Mensah-Sieh family was done without timely notice in writing.
147.

Defendant Mullen knew or should have known that their quarantine of the

Mensah-Sieh family discriminated against Plaintiffs due to their perceived risk of illness by
severely diminishing their everyday life activities including family relations, social contacts,
work options, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment.
148.

Defendant Mullen knew or should have known that her reckless conduct in

ordering and carrying out the quarantine of the Mensah-Sieh family unreasonably detained and
confined the family and caused their reasonable apprehension of force.
Connecticut Residents About to Return from Liberia
149.

On January 24, 2016, Skrip traveled to Monrovia, Liberia to volunteer again with

the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare.
150.

She is working with the University of Liberia on epidemiology and mathematical

modeling that she hopes will improve the ability of Liberia's health infrastructure to respond
effectively to future outbreaks of Ebola. Skrip has not volunteered in a healthcare capacity and
will not treat patients.
151.

Skrip has an airplane ticket to return to Connecticut on February 18, 2016.

152.

In approximately April 2016, Skrip plans to start making regular trips to Liberia

to continue her work in epidemiology, mathematical modeling, and health infrastructure. During
this time, Skrip intends to maintain her domicile in Connecticut, where she is registered to vote,

29

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 30 of 49

maintains a driver’s license, and pays state taxes.
153.

Skrip’s experience with the Defendants’ quarantine policies and practices

continues to affect her current and future travel plans to visit West Africa and return to
Connecticut. She makes these plans under the reasonable fear of being subjected to another
unjustified and unlawful quarantine.
154.

Plaintiffs Bishop and Esther Yalartai, husband and wife, were born in Liberia and

have resided in Connecticut since approximately 1990. Bishop Yalartai is the religious leader of
the Faith Revival Temple Churches, which is comprised of five churches and four preaching
points in Liberia, West Africa, and one church in West Haven, Connecticut. Together, these
churches number around 2,500 members in Liberia and the United States.
155.

Bishop and Esther Yalartai are presently in Liberia on a trip to attend the Annual

Convention of the Faith Revival Temple Churches, to conduct humanitarian work with Liberian
schools, and to visit family members. They have airplane tickets to return to Connecticut on
February 20, 2016.
156.

In the future, Bishop and Esther Yalartai intend to travel to Liberia once or twice

annually, to continue to oversee the work of the Faith Revival Temple Churches.
157.

Bishop and Esther Yalartai reasonably fear that they may be subject to

Defendants’ quarantine policies and practices, which are unlawful and scientifically unjustified,
upon their return to Connecticut later this month or following future trips to Liberia.
158.

There is a real and immediate threat that Defendants Malloy and Pino will

quarantine Plaintiffs Skrip, Bishop Yalartai, and Esther Yalartai upon their return to Connecticut,
pursuant to Defendants’ quarantine policies and practice, because the risk of a future Ebola
outbreak in West Africa is high, because Defendants reserve the authority to issue scientifically

30

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 31 of 49

unjustified and unlawful quarantine orders pursuant to Defendant Malloy’s unrescinded
emergency declaration, and because it is highly likely that Defendants will again overreact to a
future Ebola outbreak.
Connecticut Residents Who Intend Future Travel to West Africa
159.

The Mensah-Sieh family plans to travel back to Liberia to visit friends and family.

They remain concerned that they may be subjected to future quarantines upon their return to
Connecticut.
160.

Plaintiff Dr. Mary Jean O is a licensed emergency medicine physician currently

working at the Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital (“RWJUH”) and the Rutgers Robert
Wood Johnson Medical School (“RWJMS”) in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Her primary
residence is in Hamden, Connecticut.
161.

In late 2014, a friend of Dr. O informed her that the International Rescue

Committee (“IRC”), a humanitarian organization, needed doctors to volunteer to travel to West
Africa to respond to the Ebola crisis. Dr. O volunteered and arranged a leave of absence with
RWJUH and RWJMS.
162.

Between December 2014 and February 2015, Dr. O worked as a clinical

coordinator at multiple Ebola Holding Units (“EHUs”) in Sierra Leone. She served in Port Loko
and John Thorpe, two of the hardest hit communities in Freetown.
163.

Because malaria produces symptoms similar to early Ebola symptoms, EHUs

serve to filter patients presenting with Ebola-like symptoms into Ebola Treatment Units. In the
EHUs, Dr. O used her expert training in emergency medicine and disaster response to triage
patients, send blood samples out for Ebola testing, and begin hydration and other basic treatment.
She also trained local staff in protocols for personal protective equipment (“PPE”) and best

31

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 32 of 49

medical practice for Ebola response, and oversaw the general operation of the EHU.
164.

When Dr. O returned to the United States in February 2015, she flew into John F.

Kennedy International Airport and underwent enhanced entry screening for travelers returning
from West Africa. She completed twenty-one days of active monitoring upon her return to
Connecticut, but never developed a fever or other symptoms.
165.

Dr. O plans to return to West Africa to assist in the region’s capacity building and

development of its healthcare infrastructure, so that it may better respond to future Ebola
outbreaks or other public health emergencies. In particular, she plans to train local healthcare
workers in her specialty of emergency medicine and disaster response. She also has strong
connections to Liberia and a number of Liberian physicians and nurses, due to visits during her
residency training prior the 2014 Ebola crisis.
166.

In addition, Dr. O plans to immediately travel to West Africa in the event of a

future Ebola outbreak or other health crisis.
167.

Dr. O reasonably fears that Defendants’ may subject her to unlawful and

scientifically unjustified quarantine policies and practices upon her return to Connecticut.
168.

Plaintiff Liberian Community Association of Connecticut (“LCAC”) is a non-

profit organization headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut with over 230 members. Members of
LCAC pay quarterly dues of $25.00, totaling $100.00 a year. The LCAC Constitution bestows
members with voting and governance rights within the organization.
169.

LCAC aims to enhance the social and economic development of the Liberian

community in Connecticut. The organization also contributes to development efforts in Liberia,
including a scholarship program the organization runs at the University of Liberia. LCAC
regularly organizes programming and services for its members in Connecticut and provides

32

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 33 of 49

support and information to Connecticut residents who have recently emigrated from Liberia.
LCAC additionally works to establish and maintain strong connections between the Liberian
community in Connecticut and communities in Liberia.
170.

As part of these efforts, LCAC has collaborated with the Faith Revival Temple

Church in West Haven, Connecticut to collect donations of medical supplies including
antibacterial wipes, gloves, and masks to ship to areas of West Africa affected by Ebola.
171.

Defendants’ quarantine policies and practice caused and continues to cause LCAC

to divert resources in response. In and after October 2014, LCAC assisted members who
experienced stigma because of public fear—generated by Defendants’ quarantine orders—that
Liberian individuals may carry the illness.
172.

Dozens of LCAC members travel each year between Liberia and Connecticut for

professional, religious, humanitarian, and personal reasons. Many members have current and
future plans to travel between the two countries.
173.

For example, LCAC’s Education Chair, Dr. Emmett Dennis, travels between

Connecticut and Liberia twice annually to administer LCAC’s scholarship program at the
University of Liberia. Plaintiffs Bishop and Esther Yalartai, members of LCAC, will return from
Liberia to Connecticut on February 20, 2016.
174.

There is a real and immediate threat that pursuant to Defendants’ quarantine

policies and practice, Defendants Malloy and Pino will quarantine Dr. O, members of the
Mensah-Sieh family, and members of LCAC in the future, because the risk of a future Ebola
outbreak in West Africa is high, because Defendants reserve the authority to issue scientifically
unjustified and unlawful quarantine orders pursuant to Defendant Malloy’s unrescinded
emergency declaration, and because it is highly likely that Defendants will again overreact to a

33

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 34 of 49

future Ebola outbreak.
DEFENDANTS’ POLICY, PRACTICE, AND CUSTOM
175.

Since at least October 2014, Defendants Malloy, Mullen, and Pino have violated

or still threaten to violate the rights of individuals in Connecticut through Defendants’ quarantine
policies and practice, including but not limited to:
(a)

imposing quarantines without an individual assessment of medical necessity;

(b)

failing to notify quarantined persons of their rights by providing timely notice,

and sometimes failing to provide written notice altogether;
(c)

failing to provide individuals a meaningful opportunity to challenge their

quarantine;
(d)

failing to initiate a judicial probable cause hearing prior to imposing a quarantine

order, and where exigent circumstances do not permit a pre-quarantine hearing, failing to initiate
a hearing within forty-eight hours for judicial review of any quarantine order, at which hearing
individuals could be represented by counsel, present opposing evidence and argument, and cross
examine witnesses;
(e)

failing to utilize the least restrictive means of preventing the transmission of

Ebola by quarantining individuals when other forms of medical monitoring would have been
sufficient;
(f)

failing to provide adequate resources, including food, to those whom Defendants

quarantined; and
(g)

rejecting advice from the Centers for Disease Control concerning the medical

necessity of quarantines for asymptomatic individuals.
176.

Defendant Malloy has not publicly withdrawn or rescinded his declaration of

34

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 35 of 49

Public Health Emergency dated October 7, 2014.
177.

As a result, Defendant Pino remains “authorized” to quarantine individuals when

reasonable, individualized, and scientifically sound proof does not indicate that quarantine is
necessary, and without proper notice, without providing essential supplies, and without prior or
immediate post-quarantine judicial review initiated by the state.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
178.

Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the

Named Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip, Bishop
Yalartai, Esther Yalartai, Dr. O, and LCAC seek to represent a certified Plaintiff class consisting
of all persons who will or intend to travel from Ebola-affected countries to Connecticut and are
at risk of Defendants subjecting them to an unlawful and scientifically unjustified quarantine,
pursuant to Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom, as set forth in paragraphs 4141 and 1755.
179.

This action meets all the Rule 23(a) prerequisites for maintaining a class action.

180.

The class members are sufficiently numerous as to render joinder impracticable,

satisfying Rule (23)(a)(1). Defendants’ quarantine policies and practice exposes dozens of
individuals each year to imminent risk of an unlawful and scientifically unjustifiable quarantine.
In addition, joinder is impracticable because some members of the class are without means to
retain an attorney to represent them in a civil rights lawsuit. Moreover, the class action is the
only appropriate procedural avenue for the protection of the class members’ constitutional rights.
181.

This action presents common questions of law and fact, resolution of which will

not require individualized determinations of the circumstances to any plaintiff, satisfying Rule
23(a)(2). Such common questions of law and fact include, but are not limited to:

35

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 36 of 49

(a)

whether Defendants Malloy and Pino threaten to engage in a policy, practice

and/or custom of quarantining individuals without warrant or probable cause and in the absence
of reasonable, individualized, and scientifically sound proof required by the Fourth Amendment
of the Constitution;
(b)

whether Defendants Malloy and Pino could engage in a less restrictive means than

quarantining individuals when reasonable, individualized, and scientifically sound proof does not
indicate that a quarantine is necessary, as required by the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution;
(c)

whether Defendants Malloy and Pino threaten to engage in a policy, practice

and/or custom of quarantining individuals without individually assessing those subject to
quarantine, without providing adequate and timely notification to those individuals of their
rights, without ensuring state-initiated judicial review before or immediately after imposition of
quarantine, and without other procedural protections required by the Fourteenth Amendment of
the Constitution;
(d)

whether Defendants Malloy and Pino threaten to engage in a policy, practice

and/or custom of depriving individuals of their fundamental rights, including freedom of
association, freedom from restraint, and freedom to travel by quarantining individuals in the
absence of reasonable, individualized, and scientifically sound proof required by the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution;
(e)

and whether Defendants Malloy and Pino threaten to engage in a policy, practice

and/or custom of quarantining individuals that subjected them to discrimination on the basis of
perceived disability in contravention of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

36

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 37 of 49

182.

The Named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the putative class, satisfying Rule

23(a)(3). Like the other members of the class, the Defendants’ policy, practice and/or custom of
quarantining individuals without medical necessity and in violation of due process under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the
Connecticut Constitution, the right to be free of unreasonable seizure under the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Sections 7 and 9 of the Connecticut
Constitution, and disability discrimination statutes threatens to harm the Named Plaintiffs upon
their return to Connecticut from present or future travel.
183.

The interests of the putative class are fairly and adequately protected by the

Named Plaintiffs and their attorneys, satisfying Rule 23(a)(4). The Named Plaintiffs’ interests do
not conflict with other members of the class. Instead, the Named Plaintiffs’ interests are the same
as those of the class: not to be subject to an unlawful and scientifically unjustified quarantine
upon return to Connecticut from Ebola-affected countries during present or future travel.
184.

The legal theories under which the Named Plaintiffs seek declaratory and

injunctive relief are the same or similar to those on which all members of the class will rely, and
the harms suffered by the Named Plaintiffs are typical of those suffered by the class members.
185.

With respect to Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy, the Named Plaintiffs’ attorneys, the

Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, are qualified, experienced, and able to conduct the
litigation. The attorneys have the necessary knowledge, experience, and resources to litigate this
matter. In addition, attorneys have expended the time and effort necessary to identify the class.
186.

Counsel for Plaintiffs do not anticipate any conflicts of interest between the

Named Plaintiffs and the other class members, nor does Counsel for Plaintiffs anticipate any
reason that the other class members would dispute the adequacy of the Jerome N. Frank Legal

37

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 38 of 49

Services Organization’s representation.
187.

This action also meets all the requirements of, and is brought in accordance with,

Rule 23(b)(2). Defendants’ quarantine policies and practice pose a real and immediate threat
generally applicable to each member of the class, thus making final declaratory and injunctive
relief with respect to each class as a whole appropriate.

38

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 39 of 49

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
188.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and

Boyko bring Claims 1-8 against Defendant Mullen, in her personal capacity, for declaratory
relief and damages.
189.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip,

Esther Yalartai, Bishop Yalartai, Dr. O, and LCAC, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, bring Claims 1-4 against Defendants Malloy and Pino, in their official capacities, for
declaratory and injunctive relief.
190.

At all times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, Defendants Malloy,

Mullen, and Pino acted and threaten to act under color of state law.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS)
191.

The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if

fully set forth herein.
192.

Defendant Mullen infringed the fundamental rights of Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh,

B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip, and Boyko including freedom of
association, freedom from restraint, and freedom to travel by ordering and carrying out detention
and quarantines.
193.

Defendants Malloy and Pino threaten to infringe the fundamental rights of

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip, Esther Yalartai,
Bishop Yalartai, Dr. O, LCAC, and others similarly situated including freedom of association,
freedom from restraint, and freedom to travel by ordering and carrying out detention and
quarantines.

39

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 40 of 49

194.

Defendant Mullen also recklessly infringed the fundamental right to primary and

secondary education of B.D., S.N., and Victor Sieh, under the Constitution of the State of
Connecticut by ordering and carrying out detention and quarantines.
195.

Defendant Mullen, as authorized by Defendant Malloy, unreasonably, unlawfully,

and recklessly deprived Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara,
Skrip, and Boyko of their fundamental rights by detaining and quarantining them without
medical or epidemiological justification and in a manner that substantially exceeded the least
restrictive means necessary.
196.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and

Boyko suffered injury and damages as a result of Defendant Mullen’s conduct, including
reckless and egregious conduct, in ordering and carrying out Plaintiffs’ detention and quarantine.
197.

Defendants Malloy and Pino, based upon their policy and practice, threaten to

unreasonably and unlawfully deprive Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor
Sieh, Kamara, Skrip, Esther Yalartai, Bishop Yalartai, Dr. O, LCAC, and others similarly
situated, of their fundamental rights by detaining and quarantining them without medical or
epidemiological justification.
198.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip,

Esther Yalartai, Bishop Harmon Yalartai, Dr. O, LCAC, and others similarly situated will likely
suffer future injury and damages as a result of Defendants Malloy and Pino’s threatened conduct
to order and carry out future detention and quarantines.
199.

By the foregoing, Defendants Malloy, Mullen, and Pino have violated and

threaten further to violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Constitution of the State

40

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 41 of 49

of Connecticut, Binette v. Sabo, 710 A.2d 688 (Conn. 1998), and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-165.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS)
200.

The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if

fully set forth herein.
201.

Defendant Mullen violated the right to procedural due process of Plaintiffs

Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and Boyko under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States by, in the course of issuing and enforcing
quarantine, failing to (i) make an individualized assessment about their risk to the public health;
(ii) provide timely notice of quarantine; (iii) provide timely notice to Plaintiffs of their right to
challenge Orders for quarantine; and (iv) initiate a hearing within forty-eight hours for judicial
review of Plaintiffs’ quarantine where Plaintiffs could be represented by counsel, could present
opposing evidence and argument, and could cross examine witnesses.
202.

Defendants Malloy and Pino, based upon their policy and practice, threaten to

violate the procedural due process rights of Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh,
Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip, Esther Yalaratai, Bishop Harmon Yalaratai, Dr. O, LCAC, and
others similarly situated during future detentions or quarantines.
203.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and

Boyko suffered injury and damages as a result of the conduct, including reckless and egregious
conduct, of Defendant Mullen in ordering and carrying out Plaintiffs’ detention and quarantine.
204.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip,

Esther Yalartai, Bishop Yalartai, Dr. O, LCAC, and others similarly situated will likely suffer
future injury and damages as a result of the threatened conduct of Defendants Malloy and Pino to

41

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 42 of 49

order and carry out Plaintiffs’ future detention and quarantine.
205.

By the foregoing, Defendants have violated and threaten further to violate 42

U.S.C. § 1983, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, Binette v. Sabo, 710
A.2d 688 (Conn. 1998), and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-165.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO BE FREE OF UNREASONABLE SEIZURE)
206.

The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if

fully set forth herein.
207.

Defendant Mullen unreasonably and recklessly caused Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh,

B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and Boyko to be confined under quarantine
without warrant or probable cause in violation of Plaintiffs’ right to be free of an unreasonable
seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of United States and Article I, Sections
7 and 9 the Constitution of the State of Connecticut.
208.

Defendants Malloy and Pino, based upon their policy and practice, threaten to

cause Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip, Esther
Yalaratai, Bishop Yalaratai, Dr. O, LCAC, and others similarly situated to be confined under
quarantine without warrant or probable cause in violation of Plaintiffs’ right to be free of an
unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of United States.
209.

Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and Boyko

suffered injury and damages as a result of conduct, including reckless and egregious conduct, of
Defendant Mullen in ordering and carrying out Plaintiffs’ detention and quarantine.
210.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip,

42

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 43 of 49

Esther Yalartai, Bishop Yalartai, Dr. O, LCAC, and others similarly situated will likely suffer
future injury and damages as a result of the threatened conduct of Defendants Malloy and Pino to
order and carry out Plaintiffs’ future detention and quarantine.
211.

By the foregoing, Defendants have violated and threaten further to violate 42

U.S.C. § 1983, Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Article I, Sections 7 and 9 the
Constitution of the State of Connecticut, Binette v. Sabo, 710 A.2d 688 (Conn. 1998), and Conn.
Gen. Stat. § 4-165.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(VIOLATION OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT AND
SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973)
212.

The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if

fully set forth herein.
213.

Defendants unlawfully discriminated and threaten to discriminate against

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip, and Boyko by
reason of Plaintiffs’ disability or perceived disability by ordering and maintaining their
quarantine in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132
(2012) (“ADA”), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (2012)
(“Rehabilitation Act”).
214.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and

Boyko meet the statutory definition of “qualified individual[s] with a disability” under the ADA
and Rehabilitation Act, as Defendant Mullen regarded Plaintiffs as having Ebola, a physical
impairment that substantially limits major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C) (2012).
215.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip,

Esther Yalartai and Bishop Yalartai, LCAC, and others similarly situated, meet the statutory
43

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 44 of 49

definition of “qualified individual[s] with a disability” under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as
Defendants Malloy and Pino, based upon their policy and practice, threaten to regard Plaintiffs as
having Ebola, a physical impairment that substantially limits major life activities. 42 U.S.C. §
12102(1)(C) (2012).
216.

Defendants are subject to Title II of the ADA because both the State of

Connecticut and the Connecticut Department of Public Health meet the statutory definition of
“public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (2012).
217.

Defendants are subject to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act due to the State of

Connecticut’s receipt of federal funds to carry out emergency preparedness programs. In fiscal
year 2014, Connecticut received $7,767,333 from the Centers for Disease Control as part of the
Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperative Agreement Funding initiative. Defendants
received an additional $2,352,390 from the CDC as a supplement for Ebola Preparedness.
218.

Defendant Mullen discriminated against Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N.,

Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip, and Boyko by ordering and maintaining Plaintiffs’
quarantines—enforcing their unjustified isolation—without scientific justification, by reason of
Plaintiffs’ perceived disabilities. These actions violated Plaintiffs’ right to be free of
discrimination that would diminish their everyday life activities, including family relations,
social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural
enrichment, under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
219.

These actions also violated the right of B.D., S.N., and Victor Sieh to be free of

discrimination in their access to state- and federally-funded education under Title II of the ADA
and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
220.

Defendants Malloy and Pino, based upon their policy and practice, threaten to

44

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 45 of 49

discriminate against Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara,
Skrip, Esther Yalartai Bishop Yalartai, Dr. O, LCAC, and others similarly situated by ordering
and maintaining Plaintiffs’ quarantines without scientific justification, by reason of Plaintiffs’
perceived disabilities. These threatened actions violate Plaintiffs’ right to be free of
discrimination under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
221.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and

Boyko suffered injury and damages as a result of Defendants Mullen’s conduct in ordering and
carrying out Plaintiffs’ quarantines.
222.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip,

Esther Yalartai, Bishop Yalartai, Dr. O, LCAC, and others similarly situated will likely suffer
future injury and damages as a result of Defendants Malloy and Pino’s threatened conduct to
order and carry out Plaintiffs’ future quarantines.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(FALSE IMPRISONMENT)
223.

The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if

fully set forth herein.
224.

Defendant Mullen unlawfully detained and confined Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh,

B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and Boyko by recklessly authorizing, directing,
approving, and implementing their detention and quarantine without Plaintiffs’ consent or other
privilege and without legal authority or justification.
225.

Defendant Mullen unlawfully detained and confined Plaintiff Nimley-Phillips by

recklessly directing, approving, and implementing an order requiring Nimley-Phillips to be
present to take temperatures for the Mensah-Sieh family three times a day, and to receive a

45

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 46 of 49

phone call at the house every morning for the duration of the quarantine.
226.

Defendant Mullen recklessly authorized and directed words or conduct that

caused Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, NimleyPhillips, and Boyko a reasonable apprehension of force.
227.

Plainitffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Nimley-

Phillips, and Boyko suffered injury or damages, including emotional distress, as a result of
Defendant Mullen’s reckless conduct in ordering and carrying out Plaintiffs’ detention and
quarantine.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISRESS)
228.

The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if

fully set forth herein.
229.

Defendant Mullen intentionally and knowingly inflicted emotional distress upon

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and Boyko by ordering
and carrying out Plaintiffs’ detention and quarantine.
230.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and

Boyko suffered injury and damages as a result of Defendant Mullen’s reckless conduct in
ordering and carrying out Plaintiffs’ detention and quarantine.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(NEGLIENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
231.

The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if

fully set forth herein.
232.

Defendant Mullen recklessly and negligently inflicted emotional distress and

46

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 47 of 49

caused resultant loss of income upon Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor
Sieh, Kamara, and Boyko in ordering and carrying out Plaintiffs’ detention and quarantine.
233.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and

Boyko suffered injury and damages as a result of Defendant Mullen’s reckless conduct in
ordering and carrying out Plaintiffs’ detention and quarantine.
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(NEGLIGENCE)
234.

The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if

fully set forth herein.
235.

Defendant Mullen negligently caused Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N.,

Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, and Boyko emotional and psychological injury in ordering
and carrying out Plaintiffs’ detention and quarantine.
236.

Defendant Mullen negligently caused Plaintiff Nimley-Phillips to incur out-of-

pocket expenses in carrying out the quarantine of the Mensah-Sieh family in her home.
237.

Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Nimely-

Phillips, and Boyko suffered injury or damages as a result of Defendant Mullen’s reckless
conduct in ordering and carrying out Plaintiffs’ detention and quarantine.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs waive their right, pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
to trial by jury in this action.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed class respectfully request that
this Court enter a final judgment:
47

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 48 of 49

(1)

Declaring, under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that Connecticut’s current quarantine policies

and practices are unlawful in contravention of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
U.S. Constitution, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
(2)

Declaring, under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the 2014 quarantine orders of Plaintiffs

Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip, and Boyko, and the
procedures through which those quarantines were carried out, were unlawful in contravention of
the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
(3)

Permanently enjoining and restraining Defendants Governor Dannel Malloy and

Dr. Raul Pino from maintaining and implementing their quarantine policies and practices against
present and future travelers to Connecticut, in contravention of the rights of Plaintiffs MensahSieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Skrip, Bishop Yalartai, Esther Yalartai,
Dr. O, LCAC, and members of the proposed class, under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
of the U.S. Constitution, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
(4)

Ordering Defendant Dr. Jewel Mullen, in her personal capacity, to pay damages

to Plaintiffs Mensah-Sieh, B.D., S.N., Nathaniel Sieh, Victor Sieh, Kamara, Nimley-Phillips, and
Boyko for harms suffered or costs incurred as a result of their ordered detention and quarantine;
(5)

Ordering Defendants to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1988 (b) and 29 U.S. Code § 794a. (b); and
(6)

Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

48

 Case 3:16-cv-00201 Document 1 Filed 02/08/16 Page 49 of 49

BY: /s/ Michael J. Wishnie
Alexandra Brodsky, Law Student Intern
Elizabeth Deutsch, Law Student Intern
Kyle Edwards, Law Student Intern
Kyle Fees, Law Student Intern
Mekela Panditharatne, Law Student Intern
Emma Roth, Law Student Intern
Amy Kapczynski*
Michael J. Wishnie, No. ct27221
JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES
ORGANIZATION
Yale Law School
P.O. Box 209090
New Haven, Connecticut 06520
Phone: (203) 432-4800
Counsel for Plaintiffs

*

Application for admission to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut pending.

49