The case is Khan v. Yale University, issued on March 4. Khan says the victim's allegations against him during the university disciplinary proceeding are defamatory and tortiously interfered with his contractual relations (with the university, I presume). Normally, you cannot sue someone for something they said in court. That's the quasi-judicial immunity doctrine, which allows you to testify under oath without fear of a lawsuit arising from that very testimony. This ensures that people will testify freely without worrying about any legal consequences flowing from that testimony.
Does the quasi-judicial immunity rule apply to university sexual assault hearings? The administrative proceedings are not court, that's for sure; they are private and have a different standard of proof than criminal court. But the proceedings do have court-like qualities, such as testimony and the presentation of evidence.
It is not clear whether the quasi-judicial immunity rule blocks Khan's lawsuit against the victim. Courts in Connecticut have not clearly addressed this issue. While this immunity applies in government proceedings, such as license revocation hearings and police internal affairs investigations, the Yale sexual assault committee is a private entity. In non-legal terms, the law in Connecticut is too fuzzy for the Court of Appeals to squarely resolve this state-law issue.
When a state law issue is unclear and the Court of Appeals thinks the highest court of that state should resolve the issue before the Court of Appeals can decide the case, the Circuit will certify the case to the state's highest court, in this instance the Connecticut Supreme Court. And so that's where this case is headed. Once the Connecticut Supreme Court resolves this issue, the Second Circuit can return to this case and decide whether Kahn can sue the victim.
No comments:
Post a Comment