First, the idea of "conflict of interest" is not about allowing or disallowing testimony. That's (1) normally an argument you make after testimony and (2) absolutely not something one party to a suit (the State of Florida in this case, via its organ the University of Florida) gets to decide unilaterally.
Second, your logic is exactly backwards. The reason you might infer a conflict of interest and thus judge someone's testimony because of their employer is that they might be induced (e.g. by being rewarded or punished) to represent their employer's opinions instead of their own. Here, they were called by the plaintiffs and are expected to testify against the interests of the State.
Second, your logic is exactly backwards. The reason you might infer a conflict of interest and thus judge someone's testimony because of their employer is that they might be induced (e.g. by being rewarded or punished) to represent their employer's opinions instead of their own. Here, they were called by the plaintiffs and are expected to testify against the interests of the State.