A former Yale University student gained national attention after suing a classmate who accused him of sexual assault for defamation. Now, he’s also going after the organizations that backed her — expanding a case that has implications for how people talk about campus sexual violence.
Saifullah Khan filed a defamation lawsuit in May against 16 advocacy organizations and law firms and one individual lawyer. The complaint alleges the defendants falsely labeled Khan a rapist and made other defamatory statements in a court document.
“They came to my turf and they attacked me, so now it’s war,” Khan said of the defendants in an interview with The Chronicle. “I will do whatever it takes, and they’re welcome to settle, but if they don’t, fine by me. I’ll drag this out for 10-plus years.”
The advocacy organizations filed an amicus brief in 2022 urging the Connecticut Supreme Court to shield Khan’s accuser — who is referred to as “Jane Doe” in court documents — from being targeted with a defamation lawsuit for statements she made about Khan during Yale’s Title IX hearings. The groups’ assertion that Khan raped Doe appeared in their initial application to file that amicus brief.
Khan’s new complaint adds to his long-running legal fight against Yale and the woman who accused him.
It’s also part of an increase in lawsuits coming from college students who face sexual-assault accusations, lawyers told The Chronicle.
Defamation claims have emerged as a common defense strategy as students have become more open to reporting and discussing sexual misconduct on campus in recent years. Rallying cries such as “believe survivors” aim to encourage victims to come forward. Sometimes, in heated moments, students call out individuals by name — on campus and online — and say they caused harm.
During campus and criminal proceedings, students who report allegations might say, “I was sexually assaulted,” and call the accused student a “perpetrator” or a “rapist.” Victim advocates often come to their aid, as the advocacy organizations did in Doe’s case.
First Amendment and Title IX experts have doubts about the integrity of the arguments outlined in Khan’s complaint against the organizations, largely suggesting the lawsuit will not play out in his favor.
Still, Khan’s case demonstrates the potential consequences of using directly accusatory language to speak out about sexual misconduct — even if it’s coming from a place of support for students who come forward.
An Ongoing Battle
Khan’s extensive campaign stems from an incident in 2015, when he and Jane Doe were Yale students. Doe alleged that Khan sexually assaulted her in her dorm room after a Halloween event.
Khan was acquitted of criminal sexual-assault charges in 2018 but was found responsible for sexual misconduct through Yale’s Title IX proceedings. The university expelled him in 2019.
The starkly different outcomes of the criminal and college proceedings prompted Khan to sue Yale for $110 million. Khan also included Doe in the lawsuit, suing her for defamation.
While people who allege sexual assault are usually given immunity from defamation claims, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled last year that Khan could move forward with his lawsuit against Doe, affirming his argument that the woman should not be entitled to protection for statements she made during the campus disciplinary process because it is not akin to a court.
The Connecticut court’s controversial decision added fuel to an ongoing debate about whether university Title IX proceedings leave students who report sexual misconduct vulnerable to legal action.
Currently, campus Title IX hearings are required to include an opportunity for students to cross-examine one another, usually through their respective advisers, who are often lawyers or victim advocates. If immunity protections don’t apply, it’s possible that responses to such questioning could get students and others in trouble.
The Biden administration has finalized new Title IX regulations that would remove the cross-examination mandate; those changes are being challenged in court.
In his latest lawsuit, Khan accuses the advocacy groups that voiced support for Doe of defamation, false light, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process. He alleges that the amicus-brief draft, which the court rejected, was filed to harm his reputation.
The draft brief referred to Khan as a “rapist” and said he “raped” Jane Doe.
In July 2022, the state Supreme Court rejected the brief over concerns about that language. The defendants submitted a revised version of the brief in August 2022, which omitted the allegedly defamatory terms and phrases. But the rejected draft remains accessible to the public on the court’s website.
Khan also filed a professional-ethics complaint against Jennifer Becker, the attorney who represented the advocacy groups at the time they filed the brief, according to his complaint. In response, Becker issued an apology. She is the attorney named in Khan’s lawsuit.
As of this week, all but one of the defendants have retained counsel and must respond to Khan’s complaint by early August. One of the groups, Jewish Women International, has requested to extend its deadline to October. None of them responded to requests for comment from The Chronicle.
Khan’s relentless legal challenges have led some to cast him as an activist looking to empower men to fight sexual-misconduct allegations.
But Khan says his only goal is to clear his name.
“A lot of people try to present me as some sort of gender warrior, which is silly to me because that’s not what I’m doing,” Khan said. “All I’m saying is, ‘I did not do this thing.’ That’s it.”
Legal Analysis
Law experts suggested Khan’s goal is likely to send a message rather than to provoke severe legal repercussions.
“I think it is kind of a men’s-rights gimmick,” said Laura Dunn, a New York-based victim-rights and Title IX attorney. “It seems like it’s meant to create fear.”
Dunn questioned why Khan chose to sue the advocacy groups instead of requesting that the state Supreme Court seal the initial amicus brief.
Still, she said she understands where Khan’s overarching legal fight is coming from.
Students are sometimes held responsible for misconduct by their university despite not being criminally convicted. That’s because colleges typically use a “preponderance of evidence” standard — which means that, more likely than not, campus policies were violated — while criminal convictions must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Such circumstances, Dunn said, can lead to confusion over whether someone should be labeled with criminal terms like “rapist.”
Dunn’s main concern about Khan’s lawsuit against the advocacy groups is that it could affect what’s called litigation privilege, which grants immunity for communications made during or in preparation for litigation. In the lawsuit, Khan argues that the groups’ labeling of him as a “rapist” is not protected by litigation privilege because the court rejected the brief.
“If I had to put money on it, I would bet litigation privilege applies,” Dunn said.
David Schulz, a clinical lecturer at Yale Law School and director of its Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic, agreed. He said Connecticut has applied litigation privilege broadly in the past.
Regardless of the possible legal implications, some experts are fearful about how the lawsuit may harm victims of sexual assault and their advocates.
“It’s trying to send a message to these entities that you better not speak up for survivors again, or we’re coming for you,” said Liz Abdnour, a lawyer with experience in Title IX law and a former Title IX investigator at Michigan State University.
If the case drags on, Abdnour warns it could discourage organizations from voicing their support in court for victims due to the high costs that come with legal battles.
Kimberly Lau, a partner and chair of the Title IX and College Discipline Practice at Warshaw Burstein law firm, has experience representing both students who report sexual assault and students who face accusations. She said Khan’s choice to sue, instead of requesting to seal the document, could be an attempt to prevent future defamatory statements being made about him and others in similar circumstances.
“Some words have very impactful meanings and can be life-altering once you say them,” she said. “It’s amazing how when you put the word ‘alleged’ in front of ‘rapist,’ it changes dramatically the level of liability somebody has.”
