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

Heading: Yale’s Sexual Misconduct Policy

Text: Yale’s Sexual Misconduct Policy proscribes its faculty, employees, and students from engaging in sexual misconduct. The policy defines sexual misconduct [to] incorporate[] a range of behaviors including sexual assault (which includes rape, groping and any other nonconsensual sexual contact), sexual harassment, intimate partner violence, stalking, and any other conduct of a sexual nature that is non-consensual, or has the purpose or effect of threatening or intimidating a person or persons. App’x at 75. Otherwise, the policy focuses mainly on procedures for reporting and investigating such misconduct. The policy provides, among other things, for a University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct (“UWC”), consisting of approximately thirty members appointed by Yale’s provost from across the university’s faculty, student body, and managerial or not know what role, if any, the affirmative consent standard (or, indeed, any portion of Connecticut law) played in the hearing. 13 professional employees. 12 Upon the filing of a formal sexual misconduct complaint, the policy calls for the tenured faculty member chairing the UWC to appoint “an impartial fact-finder” to investigate the allegations, as well as five UWC members to constitute a hearing panel (the “UWC hearing panel”) to determine if university policy was violated, and if so, to recommend appropriate discipline. Id. at 79-80. Yale’s policy empowers the appointed fact-finder to “gather documents and conduct interviews as necessary to reach a thorough understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations of the complaint,” which are then described in a “report” that may also address the credibility of witnesses, but not reach conclusions as to any violation of University policy. Id. at 80. While there is no requirement that statements made or evidence submitted to the fact-finder (or, later, to the UWC hearing panel) be sworn or otherwise satisfy any rules of reliability, Yale policy does state that a “[f]ailure to provide truthful information or any attempt to impede the UWC process may result in a recommendation for a more severe penalty or a referral for discipline.” Id. at 77. 12 All UWC members must participate in training pertaining to University resources for redress of sexual misconduct; sexual misconduct and equal employment, educational, and professional opportunity; methods of informal resolution; the interaction between University disciplinary processes and criminal processes; responding to retaliation; and other topics suggested by experts from within and outside the University. App’x at 77. 14 The fact-finder’s report is transmitted to the UWC hearing panel and to the complainant and respondent (“the parties”), whereupon the panel conducts a hearing “intended primarily” to allow its members “to interview the complainant and the respondent with respect to the fact-finder’s report.” Id. at 80. The parties do “not appear jointly before the panel” unless they expressly agree to do so. Id. Rather, when one is being interviewed by the panel, the other must remain in a separate room with only “audio access to the proceedings.” Id. Preliminary to any panel interview, each party may make a 10-minute preliminary statement, a written copy of which is provided to the other party. The panel alone then poses questions to the party. And while parties may propose questions to the panel, the panel, “at its sole discretion,” decides what questions to ask. Id. The policy appears to afford no opportunity for parties to offer closing statements. Further, while the policy permits parties to be accompanied by an advisor (who may be an attorney) at any step in the disciplinary process, it specifically prohibits an advisor from speaking for a party or offering evidence on his or her behalf. Within 10 days of the final hearing session, the UWC hearing panel must set out its findings of fact and its violation conclusion in a written report to the relevant final Yale decisionmaker who, in the case of an accused student, is “the dean of the respondent’s school.” Id. at 81. Copies of this report are furnished to the parties, who have three days to submit a written response. The decisionmaker then determines whether any further hearings are necessary and, if not, renders a written decision setting forth the decisionmaker’s conclusions as to any violation of Yale’s Sexual Misconduct Policy and any penalties to be imposed. Student parties can appeal a 15 decisionmaker’s determination to Yale’s provost, but only on two grounds: (1) procedural error preventing a fair adjudication, and (2) new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the hearing. Yale’s UWC Proceeding Against Khan In November 2018, a UWC hearing panel convened to consider Doe’s complaint that Khan had sexually assaulted her on campus three years earlier. 13 Both Doe and Khan appeared at the hearing: Khan in person; Doe (who had by this time graduated from Yale) by teleconference from a remote location. Despite the fact that Doe was not physically present, neither Khan nor his attorney-advisor was permitted to be in the hearing room when Doe made her preliminary statement and answered panel questions. Rather, Khan and his attorney were required to remain in another room, provided with only an audio feed of Doe’s appearance. 14 Nor was Khan’s attorney permitted to speak on his client’s behalf or to voice objections to panel questions that Khan now asserts were compound or assumed facts not in evidence. The final UWC hearing panel report is not before this court. Khan, however, asserts that the panel found him to have violated 13We rely on Khan’s complaint in describing the UWC hearing as no transcript of that proceeding is before the court. While Yale policy calls for retention of the “minutes from each UWC hearing session,” App’x at 83, Khan asserts that his request for a transcript or recording at the conclusion of his hearing was denied. 14 Excluding Khan and his attorney from the hearing room during Doe’s appearance is perplexing not only because Doe was not physically present but also because the parties had already testified in each other’s presence at Khan’s criminal trial. 16 Yale’s Sexual Misconduct Policy in his 2015 encounter with Jane Doe, as a result of which Yale expelled him.