Yale University buildings in New Haven, Connecticut.
HARTFORD, Conn. - A man who was expelled from Yale University over rape claims that he later overcame in criminal court has lost a lawsuit against his accuser and multiple nonprofit organizations for calling him a “rapist” in court filings.
Absolute immunity applies to statements made in court, the Connecticut Supreme Court said June 30, even when those statements are made by outside parties in friend-of-the-court briefs or republished accounts of those filings.
“The litigation privilege `protects the rights of clients who should not be imperiled by subjecting their legal advisors to the constant fear of lawsuits arising out of their conduct in the course of legal representation,’” the Supreme Court said, upholding the dismissal of a lawsuit by former student Saifullah Khan.
The ruling ends a litigation campaign Khan brought against Yale, his accuser, her lawyers and a number of nonprofits that supported her after he was expelled from the university over accusations of rape. Khan was acquitted of sexual assault in criminal court and won a significant victory in 2023 when the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Yale’s disciplinary process wasn’t “quasi-judicial” and thus his accuser wasn’t protected against lawsuits over her statements there. But a federal court ultimately threw out his case against Yale, and the Connecticut Supreme Court has now ended his related litigation.
Khan was accused of engaging in nonconsensual sex by a woman identified as Jane Doe and expelled from Yale after a 2018 disciplinary process the Connecticut Supreme Court later criticized as one-sided and unfair. Khan was allowed to have his lawyer present, but he couldn’t call witnesses without the approval of the disciplinary panel, couldn’t submit evidence and his lawyer couldn’t argue for him.
Khan sued Yale and his accuser in federal court, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Connecticut Supreme Court to decide whether the disciplinary proceedings were entitled to absolute immunity. As part of that process, various groups including Jewish Women International, Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence and Women’s Law Project filed amicus briefs with the court or republished the contents of those briefs.
The nonprofits, represented by the Fierberg National Law Group and Jennifer M. Becker, opened their brief by saying: “When Jane Doe was in college, the plaintiff raped her.” The brief went on to call Khan “Jane Doe’s rapist” and described her as a “victim.”
Khan objected to their filings, saying the statements were “a false and vicious personal attack” and an abuse of the litigation privilege protecting statements made in court.
He then sued the nonprofits and their lawyers in state court for defamation. The defendants responded by citing the anti-SLAPP statute, which allows for speedy dismissal of lawsuits attacking public speech. The trial court dismissed the cases, and the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, ruling the statements were protected.
Alexander T. Taubes represented Khan, while Amanda S. Amert and Scott M. Harrington represented the defendants.
