Another Cautionary Title IX Story – Part 3

We have been following a case in which a Yale student was "convicted" of sexual assault in a Title IX process at Yale and expelled as a result. But he was then acquitted in a regular court proceeding and is now suing the accuser and Yale for defamation.

The defense argued that testimony in the Yale proceeding could not be used for defamation, but courts - including the Connecticut Supreme Court - have ruled that because due process wasn't provided in the Yale process, such protection does not apply.

The case now seems to have gotten into the federal court system and is producing the same result: Absent due process, testimony in a university process is not protected and the defamation suit can continue. A federal court of appeals has ruled:

... “absolute immunity does not apply in this case because Yale’s disciplinary hearing was not a quasi-judicial proceeding in that it lacked procedural safeguards—e.g., an oath requirement, cross-examination, the ability to call witnesses, meaningful assistance of counsel, an adequate record for appeal—associated with judicial proceedings.” ...*

Yours truly is no legal expert, but it seems clear that Yale and the accuser would have been well served by a process that provided basic due process. We noted in a prior post on this case that Yale has unionized workers.** Unionized workers typically have a grievance and arbitration process that provdes basic due process, e.g., witnesses are cross examined, etc. Outside courts look for such features because they are essential judicial practices.

====

*https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/10/26/former-yale-student-can-sue-accuser-defamation.

**https://uclafacultyassociation.blogspot.com/2023/07/another-cautionary-title-ix-story-part-2.html.