Background of the Lawsuit
Saifullah Khan, a former Yale University student who was acquitted of sexual assault charges in 2018, has filed a defamation lawsuit against 15 women’s advocacy groups and an attorney. Khan, a 31-year-old native of Afghanistan, claims these organizations damaged his reputation by labeling him a “rapist” in a court brief filed during a 2022 legal proceeding.
The groups, including the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence and the National Women’s Law Center, referred to Khan as “her rapist” in the brief, echoing the allegations of his accuser. Though the language was later amended, Khan argues that the damage to his reputation was already done, causing him both economic and non-economic harm.
Legal Implications and Khan’s Response
Khan’s lawsuit seeks financial damages, citing the continued publication of the original draft brief on the Connecticut Judicial Branch website and by the women’s advocacy groups online. Khan’s attorney, Alex Taubes, emphasized that while the language might have been justified if Khan had been found guilty, his acquittal should have provided some protection against such damaging accusations.
“We would like for them to understand that there is harm to someone when you just label them,” Taubes said. “But he wants to see that when you actually are found not guilty, is there any vindication?”
Acquittal and Expulsion from Yale
Despite being acquitted of four sexual assault charges by a jury in May 2018, Khan was expelled from Yale University in November 2018 following a separate university investigation and disciplinary proceeding. Khan has since sued both Yale and his accuser, with that case still pending in federal court.
The Connecticut State Supreme Court was involved in this case to determine whether Khan’s accuser should be immune from civil suits for comments made during the university’s disciplinary process. Women’s rights groups argued that immunity was essential to encourage rape victims to come forward without fear of legal repercussions.
Supreme Court Ruling and Legal Precedents
In a unanimous 7-0 ruling, the Connecticut State Supreme Court decided that Khan’s accuser could not fully benefit from the immunity typically granted to witnesses in criminal cases due to the limited rights Khan had to defend himself in the university’s proceedings. Yale’s procedures, like many other U.S. universities, do not allow for cross-examination of accusers and do not require witnesses to testify under oath.
Jennifer Becker, the former legal director at Legal Momentum who submitted the original brief, acknowledged in a statement that her language was “overzealous and unnecessarily forceful.” However, she argued that the refiled brief, corrected as per the court’s orders, should mitigate any harm caused to Khan.
