University of Connecticut, Storrs. Photo: Wikipedia/Daderot

Citing absolute immunity, among other factors, a federal judge has granted a defense request to dismiss several defendants from a lawsuit filed against the University of Connecticut.

The lawsuit against the university, though, moves forward, with claims by its former diversity officer alleging racial discrimination at the institution. But defendants who were members of the Connecticut Office of State Ethics have been dismissed from the case.

Charmane Thurmand filed the federal lawsuit in July against the university's president and other top administrators, claiming she was targeted because of her race after speaking out about the school's diversity policies. Thurmand, who is black, was employed as a diversity officer for four and a half years until she said she was forced to leave with a constructive discharge in February 2017. A doctorate candidate at The Graduate School, Thurmand was expelled in May 2017.

Related: Former UConn Diversity Officer Sues University for Alleged Racial Discrimination

The lawsuit claimed then-university president Susan Herbst and others “instigated the original retaliatory investigation” against Thurmand regarding her husband obtaining a fellowship after she spoke out about the university's policies. The suit claimed violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The lawsuit said Thurman, who now lives in California, “publicly spoke about UConn's discriminatory conduct, including that while the university publicly declared it valued diversity, it continued a racist policy of treating individuals of color differently and adversely than their white counterparts.” It said Thurmand spoke out against “discriminatory practices and malfeasance that included lack of standards and policies regarding the awarding of diversity scholarships and grants, and discriminatory policies and conduct toward minority students and candidates in the Graduate School.”

At the time, Thurmand's attorney, Hartford-based solo practitioner James Brewer, said the university, led by Herbst, “maliciously said Charmane improperly obtained a fellowship for her husband.” Brewer also at the time said top university staff, “without cause, initiated and published false charges of misconduct and thievery, based on plaintiff's race and color.”

The former defendants are Carol Carson, executive director of the Connecticut Office of State Ethics; Thomas Jones, ethics enforcement officer at the office; and Mark Wasielewski, deputy enforcement officer at the office.

The defendants who were dismissed from the lawsuit claimed they were entitled to absolute immunity as to claims for money damages against them in their individual capacities. They argued that, because their functions are “analogous to those of a prosecutor,” they should be afforded absolute immunity. Thurmand, in court briefs, argued the defendants in question had very little in common with a prosecutor and that absolute immunity did not apply.

In her 15-page ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Janet Hall wrote: “Both the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have held that an agency official who decides to institute an administrative proceeding is entitled in such circumstances to absolute immunity, since that decision is very much like the prosecutor's decision to initiate or move forward with a criminal prosecution.”

In her ruling, Hall also noted that plaintiff Thurmand was accused of improperly using her position at the university for financial gain. “The court concludes that the allegations have a common nucleus of fact,” the judge wrote.

The lawsuit further alleges that an investigation by Bruce Gelston, an employee in the university's Office of Audit, Compliance and Ethics, “purposely excluded evidence and witnesses, and made a false finding that plaintiff violated provisions of the employee code … and illegitimately obtained a fellowship for her husband and thereby committed theft.”

Brewer did not respond to a request for comment Friday.

Staff of the Office of the Attorney General represented the Office of State Ethics. Elizabeth Benton, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Attorney General, had no comment on the matter because the issue is still pending.