Khan v. Yale University, 347 Conn. 1

Background:

Plaintiff Saifullah Khan, a Yale undergraduate, was accused of sexual assault by Jane Doe in 2015, criminally charged, and later acquitted in 2018.
Yale’s University‑Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct (UWC) convened a disciplinary hearing in 2018; Doe participated by remote statement and was not under oath; Khan and counsel were excluded from the hearing room, heard an audio feed, and counsel could not speak, cross‑examine, or object.
UWC procedures let parties submit questions and recommend witnesses but left panel discretion to reject them; the panel denied Khan’s request for a transcript and ultimately recommended expulsion, which Yale imposed.
Khan sued in federal court for defamation and related claims; the District Court dismissed Doe under a theory that the UWC proceeding was quasi‑judicial and Doe had absolute immunity; the Second Circuit certified questions to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Connecticut Supreme Court held the UWC proceeding was not quasi‑judicial because it lacked essential procedural safeguards (oath/perjury exposure, meaningful cross‑examination, ability to call witnesses, meaningful counsel participation, and an adequate record).
The court ruled a qualified (conditional) privilege applies to alleged victims reporting sexual assault to campus authorities, but Khan’s complaint adequately alleged actual malice to defeat the privilege at the motion‑to‑dismiss stage.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. What are the requirements for a proceeding to be "quasi‑judicial" for absolute immunity?	Kelley/Petyan tests too broad; quasi‑judicial should be limited to government forums.	Quasi‑judicial extends where law is applied to fact, procedural safeguards exist, and public policy favors immunity.	A proceeding is quasi‑judicial only if specifically authorized by law, applies public law to facts, contains adequate procedural safeguards, and public policy supports absolute immunity.
2. Was the 2018 Yale UWC proceeding quasi‑judicial?	UWC applied Title IX/statutory affirmative‑consent standards and thus was quasi‑judicial.	The UWC procedures provided sufficient protections and statutory authorization.	No — even if law‑to‑fact might be met, the UWC lacked adequate safeguards (no oath/perjury risk, no meaningful live cross‑examination, limited witness calling, constrained counsel participation, no transcript).
3. If quasi‑judicial, would Doe have absolute immunity for statements at the UWC hearing?	(If quasi‑judicial) absolute immunity necessary to encourage reporting; Doe entitled to absolute privilege.	Same — absolute immunity protects candid reporting and administration of disciplinary processes.	Not reached because UWC is not quasi‑judicial; absolute immunity denied.
4. If not quasi‑judicial, is there any privilege and was it defeated?	No privilege or only minimal protection; Khan entitled to pursue defamation claim.	Qualified privilege should apply to campus reports and Doe should be protected.	Qualified privilege applies to campus sexual‑assault reports, but Khan plausibly alleged actual malice sufficient to defeat the privilege at the motion‑to‑dismiss stage.

Key Cases Cited

Priore v. Haig, 344 Conn. 636 (Conn. 2022) (articulates procedural‑safeguards and public‑policy limits on recognizing quasi‑judicial proceedings)
Kelley v. Bonney, 221 Conn. 549 (Conn. 1992) (enumerates factors to assess quasi‑judicial character of a proceeding)
Petyan v. Ellis, 200 Conn. 243 (Conn. 1986) (establishes law‑to‑fact requirement for quasi‑judicial immunity)
Gallo v. Barile, 284 Conn. 459 (Conn. 2007) (recognizes qualified privilege for reports to authorities and outlines malice standard to defeat it)
Craig v. Stafford Construction, Inc., 271 Conn. 78 (Conn. 2004) (applies Kelley factors and emphasizes record/appeal features)
Larmel v. Metro North Commuter Railroad Co., 341 Conn. 332 (Conn. 2021) (arbitration can be quasi‑judicial when statutorily authorized and procedurally robust)
Hopkins v. O’Connor, 282 Conn. 821 (Conn. 2007) (discusses counsel and cross‑examination rights in quasi‑judicial proceedings)
Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018) (requires some form of live cross‑examination in campus disciplinary hearings when credibility is central)
Overall v. University of Pennsylvania, 412 F.3d 492 (3d Cir. 2005) (private university grievance lacking sworn testimony and transcript is not quasi‑judicial)
Doe v. University of the Sciences, 961 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2020) (describes minimal procedural protections expected in private university disciplinary processes)