Opinion ID: 6320161
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Connecticut Law

Text: Although Khan does not plead Connecticut law’s effect on Yale’s Sexual Misconduct Policy, we take judicial notice that in 2012— i.e., within months of Yale adopting its policy, and almost six years before the university’s 2018 hearing on Doe’s claims against Khan— Connecticut enacted General Statute § 10a-55m. See Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. New York, 691 F.2d 1070, 1086 (2d Cir. 1982) (stating that court may take judicial notice of law). That law requires all institutions of higher education within the state—private as well as public—to adopt programs for the awareness, prevention, and investigation of sexual assaults. 8 Each covered institution must file with a committee of the Connecticut General Assembly copies of its policies regarding campus sexual misconduct and the materials used presently reconsidering these rules. See Exec. Order No. 14021, 86 Fed. Reg. 13803 (Mar. 8, 2021); Letter from Suzanne B. Goldberg, Acting Assistant Sec’y for Civil Rights, Office for Civil Rights, Dep’t of Educ., to Students, Educators, and other Stakeholders (Apr. 6, 2021), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ correspondence/stakeholders/20210406-titleix-eo-14021.pdf. We need not discuss these policy changes further. For our purposes, it is sufficient to note this history and to credit Khan’s allegation that the “Dear Colleague Letter” informed the formulation of Yale’s Sexual Misconduct Policy. 8 Connecticut’s definition of an “institution of higher education” encompasses both public and private universities. See Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 10a-55, 10a-173(3). 11 to implement them, and advise as to the number and outcome of any sexual assault, stalking, or intimate partner violence reports made to the institution. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10a-55m(f). 9 In addition to reporting requirements, Connecticut law mandates, among other things, that covered institutions employ an “affirmative consent” standard in reviewing sexual assault claims. Id. § 10a-55m(b)(1)(A). The law defines “affirmative consent” as “an active, clear and voluntary agreement by a person to engage in sexual activity with another,” id. § 10a-55m(a)(1); 10 and precludes finding affirmative consent by a person who was intoxicated or otherwise incapacitated at the time of a sexual encounter, see id. § 10a55m(b)(1)(D). 11 While the law affords parties the right to present 9 Some twenty years earlier, in 1990, Congress had enacted the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092, which requires federally funded colleges and universities publicly to report campus crime and the policies promulgated to ensure safety. That law was amended in 2013 by the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act, or Campus SaVE Act (part of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013). See Pub. L. 113-4 § 304, 127 Stat. 54, 89-92 (Mar. 7, 2013). As neither party cites this legislation to this court, we do not here consider how, if at all, it may have informed Yale’s 2011 promulgation of its Sexual Misconduct Policy or the 2018 disciplinary proceeding pursuant to that policy conducted against Khan. Instead, we focus on Connecticut law because of further requirements that we now discuss in text. Connecticut does not require a covered institution to adopt this statutory 10 definition in haec verba as long as it uses a definition with a “substantially similar” meaning. Id. § 10a-55m(h). 11 The provisions regarding affirmative consent were added to the law in 2016, see An Act Concerning Affirmative Consent, 2016 Conn. Legis. Serv. 16-106 (West), i.e., after Doe’s 2015 sexual assault complaint but before Khan’s 2018 disciplinary hearing. Because we have no record of the hearing before us, see infra n. 13, we do 12 witnesses and evidence at any disciplinary hearing and to be accompanied by an advisor, see id. § 10a-55m(b)(6)(C)(i)-(ii), it says nothing about whether the advisor may question witnesses or otherwise speak at the proceedings. Nor does the law impose any oath, confrontation, cross-examination, or other evidentiaryreliability requirements for such hearings. Also, it does not prescribe particular punishments for sexual misconduct established at disciplinary hearings.