Opinion ID: 6320161
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Law-to-Fact Requirement

Text: In Kelley, the Connecticut Supreme Court found the initial lawto-fact requirement satisfied because the Board of Education there 27 was required to apply particular laws and regulations to its findings of fact in order to revoke a teaching certification. See Kelley v. Bonney, 221 Conn. at 567-68, 606 A.2d 693 (identifying relevant law and regulation). In Craig, the court found the requirement satisfied by the police department’s obligation to apply its “official code of conduct” and “collective bargaining agreement” to facts found during an internal affairs investigation. Craig v. Stafford Const., Inc., 271 Conn. at 86, 856 A.2d 372. 22 By contrast, a UWC hearing panel is charged with applying not a particular law but Yale’s own Sexual Misconduct Policy in determining whether found facts demonstrate student sexual misconduct warranting discipline. 23 But if this makes it difficult to predict that Connecticut would recognize a UWC hearing as quasi-judicial, it does not necessarily resolve the immunity question in Khan’s favor. As Khan asserts, Yale’s Sexual Misconduct Policy was formulated to conform to the requirements of Title IX—or, at least, DOE guidance as to the requirements of that law. And, as we have judicially noticed, by the time Khan’s UWC hearing was held in 2018, Yale was also subject to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10a-55m, which sets out certain requirements for campus sexual misconduct proceedings. Thus, assuming that the The collective bargaining agreement was statutorily governed by Connecticut’s 22 Municipal Employee Relations Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 7-467 et seq. 23 This comports with subsequent 2020 regulations pertaining to Title IX, which required colleges and universities to issue written “[c]onclusions regarding the application of the [school’s] code of conduct to the facts.” 34 C.F.R. § 106.45(7)(ii)(D) (emphasis added). The parties point us to nothing in these regulations, or in laws or guidance in effect at the time of the 2018 UWC hearing, that required colleges and universities to apply law to facts in disciplining student sexual misconduct. 28 Connecticut Supreme Court does use a law-to-fact requirement at the first step in identifying quasi-judicial proceedings, a question arises as to how that court might view the mandates of these federal and state laws in deciding whether Yale’s UWC proceedings satisfy that requirement. We cannot tell.