HARTFORD, Conn. (Legal Newsline) - A student who was expelled from Yale University on sex-assault claims can sue his accuser for defamation because the school’s disciplinary committee lacked basic due-process protections, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled.
Saifullah Khan sued his accuser, identified as Jane Doe, after he was expelled in 2018 over claims he had assaulted Doe in 2015. Khan was also criminally indicted over the alleged attack but was acquitted after Khan testified the drunken sex was consensual and the jury viewed texts that Doe said she didn’t remember sending.
Yale renewed its investigation of Khan after another person accused him of sexual assault and a hearing in which Doe testified via video outside of Khan’s presence. Khan was allowed to have a lawyer at the proceedings but he wasn’t allowed to object, present documents or argue for his client.
The lack of procedural safeguards meant Yale’s disciplinary process didn’t meet the definition of a “quasi-judicial process” where witnesses have absolute immunity against defamation suits, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in an advisory opinion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Doe sought summary dismissal of Khan’s case against her, arguing her statements to Yale were protected.
While Yale’s sexual-assault procedure is authorized under state law, the court said, it failed to meet the other standards required of quasi-judicial proceedings. Those include: The procedure must be conducted according to public law, parties must have the opportunity be represented by counsel and call witnesses, testimony must be under oath and there must be a right of appeal.
Yale didn’t allow any of these during its investigation and discipline of Khan, the court said. Yale didn’t provide a “reasonable opportunity to call witnesses,” Khan’s lawyers couldn’t submit documents, raise objections or argue on his behalf and thus were “effectively rendered irrelevant.” There also was no official record of the proceeding for courts to examine later for fairness, the Supreme Court ruled.
“We conclude that the collective absence of such features militates against a determination that the proceeding had adequate safeguards to ensure reliability and promote fundamental fairness,” the court ruled.
The decision allows Khan’s suit to proceed, although the federal court may decide later, after more evidence is submitted, that Doe is protected over her comments to Yale investigators.
Khan was represented by Norman Pattis and Cameron Atkinson.