Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT, :
SUSAN B. HERBST, MUN Y. CHOI,
KENT HOLSINGER, SCOTT JORDAN,
STEPANIE REITZ, BRUCE GELSTON,
KIMBERLY HILL, CAROL CARSON,
THOMAS K. JONES, MARK E. WASIELEWSKI,
DEFENDANTS : JULY 11, 2018.
COMPLAINT
I. NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an action for racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000 et. set., the Civil Rights Act of
1991, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation for speech on a matter of public concern
and denial of equal protection, and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act
C.G.S. § 46a-51 et seq., and related torts of defamation, false light invasion of privacy,
negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress under the common law of the
State of Connecticut.
2. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
3. Venue is proper within this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because all
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the State of
III. PARTIES
Graduate Center, Storrs, Connecticut and was a resident of the State of Connecticut.
6. The Defendant, SUSAN B. HERBST (“Herbst”), at all times mentioned herein, was
7. The Defendant, MIN Y. CHOI (“Choi”), at all times mentioned herein, was the
was the Dean of the Graduate School at UCONN and a resident of the State of
Connecticut.
9. The Defendant, SCOTT JORDAN (“Jordan”), at all times mentioned herein, was the
10. The Defendant STEPHANI REITZ, (“Reitz”), at all times mentioned herein, was the
11. The Defendant BRUCE GELSTON, (“Gelston”), at all times mentioned herein, was
the Office of Audit, Compliance & Ethics investigator at UCONN and a resident of
12. The Defendant KIMBERLEY HILL, (“HILL”), at all times mentioned herein, was
the Associate Director for Community Standards at UCONN and a resident of the
State of Connecticut.
2
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 3 of 17
13. The Defendant, CAROL CARSON (“Carson”), at all times mentioned herein, was the
Executive Director of the State of Connecticut, Office of State Ethics and a resident
14. The Defendant, THOMAS K. JONES (“Jones”), at all times mentioned herein, was
the Ethics Enforcement Officer, Office of State Ethics and a resident of the State of
Connecticut.
herein, was the Deputy Enforcement Officer of the State of Connecticut, Office of
16. This case involves systemic discrimination and unequal treatment based upon race,
defamation.
17. Plaintiff was employed by UCONN on October 1, 2012 as the UCONN Graduate
18. Plaintiff’ was a conscientious, hard-working and successful employee for her entire
tenure at UCONN.
19. Plaintiff was a Ph.D. candidate at the Graduate School until she was expelled on May
19, 2017.
20. Plaintiff publicly criticized UCONN and the Graduate School regarding
discriminatory practices and malfeasance, that included lack of standards and policies
policies and conduct toward minority students and candidates in the Graduate School.
3
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 4 of 17
21. Plaintiff publicly spoke out 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.
22. As a result, plaintiff was subjected to harassment, and false criminal, administrative
and academic charges by defendants, who, jointly and severally, maintained them to
23. Plaintiff was treated differently than other similarly situated individuals and retaliated
24. On or about August 2016, without notice, Herbst, Choi, Jordan and Holsinger
25. Herbst, Holsinger, Jordan and Reitz falsely and maliciously declared plaintiff
improperly obtained a fellowship for her husband, who was a graduate student at
26. Plaintiff assisted the Graduate Schools’ Diversity Committee (“Committee”) which
27. Herbst, Choi, Jordan and Holsinger, without cause, initiated and published false
28. Herbst, Choi, Jordan and Holsinger, acted in retaliation for plaintiff’s public criticism
of the Graduate Schools’ discriminatory and racist practices regarding scholarship and
grant programs.
29. Gelston, at the behest of the Herbst, Choi, Jordan, and Holsinger, conducted a biased,
exculpatory evidence and witnesses, and made a false finding that plaintiff violated
provisions of the employee code, inter alia, that she deceived Holsinger and
illegitimately obtained a fellowship for her husband and thereby committed theft.
4
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 5 of 17
30. Hill, at the behest of the Herbst, Choi, Jordan, and Holsinger conducted a biased,
excluded exculpatory evidence and witnesses and made a false finding that plaintiff
violated the provisions of the student code, stating that she deceived Holsinger and
illegitimately obtained a fellowship for her husband and thereby committed theft.
31. Gelston did not interview certain members of the Committee that would have negated
his findings and maliciously misrepresented witness statements to bolster his findings.
32. Hill ignored evidence, did not interview certain members of the Committee that would
33. Herbst, Choi, Jordan and Holsinger, Gelston, Hill and Reitz falsely and maliciously
made material misstatements and omitted material facts from their reports.
34. Herbst, Choi, Jordan and Holsinger, instituted a false debt report against plaintiff with
the UCONN Bursars Office and later reported that false debt to collection and credit
agencies. UCONN has not obtained a judgment for this debt. Defendants falsely and
35. Defendants sham, racially and retaliatory motivated actions resulted in, inter alia, the
following discriminatory and adverse employment and academic actions:
a. Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment from September 2016 to
UCONN Police.
5
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 6 of 17
e. Plaintiff was denied attendance at academic events after she was wrongfully
f. On May 19, 2017, plaintiff was academically expelled from the Graduate
36. UCONN has a pattern and practice of treating individuals of color differently than
37. Herbst, Choi, Jordan and Holsinger and Gelston instigated a false and malicious
criminal complaint to their own police department, UCONN Police that plaintiff
committed theft.
38. Herbst, Choi, Jordan and Holsinger, Gelston and Reitz then widely publicized the
false report and that plaintiff was under criminal investigation for theft.
39. Defendants published to the media Gelston’s confidential, false and deceitful
40. Defendants Herbst, Choi, Holsinger, Jordan and Gelston and Reitz published the
Ms. Thurmand did not notify the Selection Committee that she
had included her (husband) as a Fellowship recipient. The
Selection Committee did not review and approve the Fellowship
award to her (husband) and it appears that Ms. Thurmand
deceived Dean (Kent) Holsinger in that regard.
6
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 7 of 17
7
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 8 of 17
https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/UConn-Employee-Accused-of-Awarding-Husband-
Fellowship-he-Didnt-Apply-For-416889353.html
41. The aforementioned reports and publications falsely and maliciously inferred that
42. Other non-minority employees with similar allegations were not suspended or forced
43. Other non-minority students with similar situations were not expelled.
44. On or about March 2017, when defendants realized their criminal charges were
unavailing, UCONN, and Herbst, Choi, Jordan, Holsinger, Gelston, Hill and Reitz
colluded with the State of Connecticut, Office of Ethics to bring false and
45. On or about March 2017, Carson, Jones and Wasilewski of the Connecticut Office of
State Ethics instigated a retaliatory, racially motivated and baseless ethics complaint
46. The Ethics Complaint was initiated to help of UCONN, Herbst, Choi, Jordan and
47. The Ethics Complaint has been used by all defendants to harass, annoy, embarrass,
humiliate and harm plaintiff in further retaliation for her protected speech and
discrimination complaints.
48. Carson, Jones and Wasilewski have continued their meritless case despite their
8
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 9 of 17
49. Carson, Jones and Wasilewski have abused their authority by issuing illegitimate and
colleagues and employers, clearing disclosing that she is the subject of an ethics
investigation..
50. Plaintiff lost her position at Smith College after the college received false and
52. Defendants were aware, refused to investigate and allowed this discrimination to
continue.
53. The defendants, during all times mentioned in this action, acted under color of law of
the Constitution and Statutes of the United States and State of Connecticut, the laws,
charter, ordinances, policies, rules, regulations, customs and usages of the State of
Connecticut.
54. The injuries to the plaintiff were the direct and proximate cause of the intentional
55. As a consequence of the defendants actions the plaintiff suffered significant economic
harm, humiliation, pain, embarrassment, anxiety, stress, emotional mental upset, loss
57. This lawsuit is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. (Title VII), which prohibits
individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” See e.g. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
2(a).
9
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 10 of 17
58. UCONN discriminated against Thurmand based upon her race. As a proximate cause
opportunities.
59. Herbst, Choi, Holsinger and Jordan, supervisors for UCONN, and Reitz, Hill and
allegations, filing false and damaging reports, creating a hostile and discriminatorily
antagonistic work and school environment in order to force plaintiff to leave her work
position. When plaintiff did not leave, defendants expelled her from her doctoral
degree program.
60. UCONN exacted racial discrimination against Thurmand in violation of Title VII.
Title VII.
63. Thurmand received a “Release of Jurisdiction” letter for her complaint against
(“CHRO”) Docket Number 1740383 on May 22, 2018. (Attached as Exhibit 1).
64. Thurmand received a “Right to Sue” letter from the United States Equal Employment
65. As a direct and proximate result of defendants hostile, discriminatory and retaliatory
treatment of her, plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, adverse job
mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and damage to her reputation and career.
10
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 11 of 17
704], which prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee “because such
individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because
68. Defendants’ adverse employment actions against plaintiff were in retaliation for her
69. The reason advanced by the defendants for their action against plaintiff was a pretext
70. As a direct and proximate result of defendants retaliatory treatment of her, plaintiff
advancement, economic damages, pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and
72. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no
government, “deprive to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws” and requires that the government treat all similarly situated people alike.
73. The defendants, by their conduct violated the Equal Protection rights guaranteed to
74. Thurmand was part of a “protected class”, a distinct group of individuals, African-
75. Thurmand was subjected to selective enforcement of discipline in that she was (1)
treated differently from other similarly situated individuals, and (2) that such
11
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 12 of 17
intended to inhibit her exercise of her rights and inflicted with malice, bad faith and
intent to injure.
76. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ denial of her equal protection under
the law the plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, adverse job consequences,
including economic damages, pain, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and
78. Plaintiff’s speech was protected by the First Amendment as it would be fairly
79. The defendants, jointly and severally, operated to deny the plaintiff her rights to
protected speech pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
80. Plaintiffs speech concerning defendants’ discriminatory conduct and racist policies
was made based on her interest as a citizen to comment on matters of public concern
and did not conflict with expected interest of her employer in promoting the efficiency
81. The individual defendants, by their conduct, violated the Free Speech and Association
rights guaranteed to the Plaintiff by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, Article First, Section 4..
82. The individual defendants knew that their conduct was abusive and retaliatory, and
conspired to create a hostile work and academic environment to force plaintiff from
her position knowing that it would deny her procedural protections and rights
guaranteed under the aforementioned statutes, policies, laws and the Constitutions of
12
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 13 of 17
84. UCONN, by and through its agents and/or employees violated the Connecticut Fair
Employment Practices Act (“CTFEPA”), CGS § 46a-60(a)(1) and (4) and § 46a-81(c)
b. In that defendant discriminated against the plaintiff in such a way that it adversely
employees;
86. The acts and conduct of the defendants constitute negligent infliction of emotional
distress upon the plaintiff, for which the defendants are liable to the plaintiff at
common law.
87. The defendants should have realized that their conduct involved an unreasonable risk
of causing emotional distress, and that the emotional distress would result in illness
or bodily harm.
88. The defendants’ conduct caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress and caused the
plaintiff damages.
13
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 14 of 17
90. The acts and conduct of the defendants constitute intentional infliction of emotional
distress upon the plaintiff, for which the defendants are liable to the plaintiff at
common law.
91. Defendants intended to inflict emotional distress or knew that or should have known
93. The defendants’ conduct caused the plaintiff severe emotional distress and caused the
plaintiff damages.
98. Defendants statements were slander per se as they charged plaintiff with
incompetency in office and dishonesty and inferred that she committed a crime,
101. Defendants placed plaintiff in the false light that she was a poor employee, engaging
14
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 15 of 17
records that is protected by the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C.
§1232g (“FERPA).
103. Defendants acted with knowledge or reckless disregard to the falsity of the publication
106. Defendants maliciously made false statements and reports to credit agencies of
credit.
109. The acts or omissions were by the employees, agents and servants of UCONN. These
individuals acted in the course and scope of their employment at the time of the acts
110. UCONN had a duty to ensure its employees were properly trained and aware of the
111. These employees had a duty to students to maintain the confidentiality of information
and records.
112. UCONN failed to exercise ordinary care in supervising the individual defendants in
their roles, and failed to prevent foreseeable misconduct causing harm to plaintiff.
113. UCONN is liable for the acts and omission of its employees.
15
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 16 of 17
114. UCONN is responsible for the conduct of the individual defendants pursuant to the
115. Plaintiff pleads for pre and post judgment interest at the maximum allowable rate.
Plaintiff is entitled to actual damages, back pay, front pay, out of pocket expenses,
loss of benefits, consequential damages, damage to her reputation past and future, lost
plaintiff;
6. Attorney’s fees pursuant to Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
16
Case 3:18-cv-01140-JCH Document 1 Filed 07/11/18 Page 17 of 17
The plaintiff requests a trial by jury for all issues in this case.
PLAINTIFF,
CHARMANE THURMAND
17