The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found (warning: PDF):
CONCLUSION
To summarize,
1. In light of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s responses to our certified questions in this case, see Khan v. Yale University, 347 Conn. 1, 295 A.3d 855 (2023), we conclude that Khan’s state-law claims against Doe for defamation and tortious interference with contract should not have been dismissed insofar as they are based on Doe’s 2018 statements at a Yale UWC hearing because,
a. that hearing lacked the procedural safeguards necessary to qualify as a quasi-judicial proceeding and, therefore, Doe is not shielded by absolute immunity for her hearing statements; and
b. although qualified immunity is available to participants in university and college sexual Case 21-95, Document 99-1, 10/25/2023, 3584364, Page31 of 3232assault proceedings, Khan’s complaint sufficiently pleads the malice required to defeat such immunity at this stage of the case.2. Insofar as Khan bases his tortious interference claim on Doe’s 2015 statements, the claim was properly dismissed as untimely because it falls outside the relevant three year statute of repose and Khan fails adequately to plead a continuing course of conduct by Doe that would toll that statute through the time of her 2018 statements.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM IN PART so much of the partial judgment as dismissed as untimely Khan’s tortious interference claim based on Doe’s 2015 statements; we VACATE IN PART so much of the partial judgment as dismissed on absolute immunity grounds Khan’s defamation and tortious interference claims based on Doe’s 2018 statements; and we REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Yale has lost qualified immunity due to shenanigans.
It seems that the lower court will likely find differently than they did when they assumed immunity.Report
The “qualified immunity” referred to in Khan is not the qualified immunity that so many people here find so interesting. It’s a state-law doctrine completely different from the federal doctrine that does different things and works very differently from the more familiar federal qualified immunity. And Yale hasn’t “lost” it, by shenanigans or otherwise; the court simply decided that Khan’s story, if true, would mean that state-law qualified immunity wouldn’t apply. But is Khan’s story true? Stay tuned.Report
It’s not a variant of the “even if they screwed up, you can’t hold them accountable” kind of immunity?Report
The law is full of doctrines that allow you to escape accountability when you screw up. If you arrest or prosecute someone who didn’t do it, you’ve screwed up, but if you had probable cause, you won’t be held accountable for false arrest or malicious prosecution. If you say something that damages someone’s reputation, absence of malice lets you skate in a defamation case against a public figure, as do qualified privilege or lack of negligence with a private plaintiff. You can run a baby over with your car, but if you weren’t negligent, the kid is out of luck.
So, yes, the two QI doctrines are related – but like kissing cousins, noticeable though not close enough to be kinky.Report
Why we let colleges deal with criminal accusations will eternally be a mystery to me.Report