Mr. Khan will sue the woman who accused him of sexual assault at their school, Yale University.
Mr. Khan has finally made it to the stage he promised: Because he keeps winning his legal battles he can now sue the woman who accused him of sexual assault in school because she apparently complained against him in bad faith and disclose her name. This looks like a revolution in the painful situation when college students accuse the other, or each other, of having had sex, but not having obtained consent to have the sex. The new element is the chance that the woman will be sued for defamation by the man. In Mr. Khan’s case it seems that:
FIRST, Mr. Khan says he is going to sue the woman because, basically, he thinks she lied:
“Khan’s case dates back to 2015, when Jane Doe, then a senior, accused Khan of sexual assault on Halloween night. Khan denied the allegations, saying the two engaged in consensual sex.”
One implication here concerns insurance coverage. Consider the insurance coverage that this woman may have. For example, from these facts it seems she might have said what Mr. Khan calls lies from her or her parents house via zoom. If that is the case, it could be that this house’s insurance policy will provide that woman with money to pay Mr. Khan and his attorneys, now that they can sue her directly for defamation.
SECOND, Mr. Khan says he is going to make public the name of this woman, because, basically, his name is public and hers is not:
“With the new ruling, Khan said that he plans to release Doe’s identity, writing on X — the social media platform formerly known as Twitter — that the Second Circuit gave the “gift of justice.” “In the spirit of truth, ‘Jane Doe’ will soon have a name,” Khan wrote…”.
One implication here concerns our concept of forgiveness. Consider that what Mr. Khan characterizes as Yale taking away his twenties could have been avoided if that woman had forgiven Mr. Khan before appearing, remotely, at that fateful hearing. Likewise, consider what Mr. Khan maybe wants to achieve by disclosing her name: Forgiving her by making her, in the search engine reality, equivalent to him.
THIRD, Mr. Khan may single handedly be responsible for the fact that the so-called new-new-Title IX regulations have been delayed. Simply, one of the main concerns from professionals like us who represent accused students at disciplinary hearings, remains that the disciplinary hearings never allow for full, fair, and yes, sometimes re-traumatizing, cross-examination. The new-new-Title IX regulations were supposed to further limit the right to cross examine the accusing woman, the complainant.
But now, not only has DOE delayed release of the new regs, at least in the 2nd Circuit (which includes parts of Connecticut, New York, and Vermont), and in probably all the 50 states, the less the complainant gets cross examined at the school hearing, the more likely she is to be sued for defamation for what she says at the hearing, which is a risk that the new regs were likely to ignore:
“The ruling sets a larger precedent that could open students who file sexual assault accusations with Title IX offices, and choose to puruse [sic] a hearing, up to defamation lawsuits similar to Khan’s.”
All citations in this post come from Tristan Hernandez, Second Circuit Court of Appeals issues ruling in Khan case, opens possibility for sexual assault victims to be liable for defamation lawsuits, Yale News, October 26, 2023, available at:
We provided the Department of Education with a detailed comment on our opinion of what the new rules should do to better work for every party. That comment is available here: