511 F.Supp.3d 213
D. Conn.2021Background
- In October 2015 Jane Doe accused Saifullah Khan of sexual assault. Yale suspended Khan, criminal charges were filed, and Khan was acquitted by a jury in early 2018.
- Yale’s University‑Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct (UWC) later convened a disciplinary hearing (November 2018); Doe testified by videoconference, Khan listened by audio feed, his counsel’s participation was limited, and the UWC recommended expulsion.
- Khan sued Yale, several Yale officials, and Jane Doe asserting Title IX, contract, tort, defamation, and tortious‑interference claims; Doe moved to dismiss the defamation and tortious‑interference claims against her.
- Doe argued her statements at the UWC are absolutely privileged because the UWC hearings are quasi‑judicial; she also argued earlier (2015) interference claims are time‑barred.
- The court analyzed Connecticut law’s multi‑factor test for quasi‑judicial status, reviewed the UWC Procedures, considered public‑policy rationales for witness immunity, and addressed the continuing‑course‑of‑conduct / statute‑of‑limitations issue.
- Ruling: the court held the UWC proceedings were quasi‑judicial, granted Jane Doe absolute immunity for statements made at the UWC (including for tortious‑interference theories tied to those statements), and dismissed the remaining tortious‑interference claims based on 2015 conduct as time‑barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements made by Doe during the UWC hearing are absolutely privileged | Doe’s UWC testimony is not protected because Yale is a private actor; absolute immunity should not extend to private disciplinary proceedings | UWC hearings are quasi‑judicial under Connecticut factors; public policy and Title IX context support absolute immunity for participants | Held: UWC is quasi‑judicial; Doe receives absolute immunity for statements at the UWC; related defamation and tortious‑interference claims based on that testimony are barred |
| Whether tortious‑interference claims based on Doe’s 2015 accusations are time‑barred or saved by the continuing‑course doctrine | The 2015 accusations were part of a multi‑year scheme culminating in expulsion, so the continuing‑course doctrine tolls the limitations period | 2015 acts occurred more than three years before suit; continuing‑course not shown; moreover Doe’s 2018 UWC testimony (the only timely later act) is immune and thus cannot revive the 2015 claims | Held: Claims based on the 2015 accusations are time‑barred; continuing‑course doctrine does not save them because no non‑immune later wrongful conduct within the limitations period |
| Whether alleged procedural defects in the UWC (e.g., limited counsel, no cross‑examination) undermine immunity | Lack of due‑process safeguards means the proceedings should not be treated as quasi‑judicial for immunity purposes | Procedural complaints do not control the determination of quasi‑judicial status under Connecticut factors | Held: Court declined to make immunity turn on the asserted procedural deficiencies and applied the multi‑factor test to find quasi‑judicial status |
Key Cases Cited
- Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338 (Conn. 2007) (absolute immunity bars defamation claims arising from judicial or quasi‑judicial hearings)
- Kelley v. Bonney, 221 Conn. 549 (Conn. 1992) (definition and factors for quasi‑judicial proceedings)
- Hopkins v. O'Connor, 282 Conn. 821 (Conn. 2007) (policy rationale for witness immunity in judicial contexts)
- Priore v. Haig, 196 Conn. App. 675 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020) (discussion of factors for quasi‑judicial status)
- Preston v. O'Rourke, 74 Conn. App. 301 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002) (arbitration/proceeding characterized as quasi‑judicial/hybrid)
- Watts v. Chittenden, 301 Conn. 575 (Conn. 2011) (continuing‑course doctrine analysis for tolling limitations)
- Flannery v. Singer Asset Fin. Co., LLC, 312 Conn. 286 (Conn. 2014) (elements for invoking the continuing‑course doctrine)
- Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1985) (qualified immunity for certain prison disciplinary committee members; discussed by courts on related immunity questions)
- Razavi v. Sch. of the Art Inst. of Chicago, 122 N.E.3d 361 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018) (appellate decision recognizing absolute privilege for campus reporting proceedings)