U.S. Supreme Court Dockets Request of Former Tulane Professor to Order Investigation of Federal Judge

News provided by

Aug 31, 2017, 14:11 ET

SHREVEPORT, La., Aug. 31, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- A petition for a writ of mandamus, filed with the U.S. Supreme Court (Docket No. 17-205), requests that an appellate court be directed to investigate alleged offenses committed by the Hon. Helen "Ginger" Berrigan, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, in connection with her adjudication of cases from 1995 to 2001 with Tulane University as Defendant and Dr. Carl Bernofsky as Plaintiff.

The petition and accounts of Berrigan's alleged misconduct can be accessed at Plaintiff's website.

Nominated for the district judgeship by President Bill Clinton in 1993, Berrigan was a Board Member of Tulane's Amistad Research Center and an Adjunct Professor in Tulane's Law School at the time she assumed jurisdiction of Bernofsky's lawsuits. Her affiliation with the Defendant was concealed from the Plaintiff when he sued in 1995 for wrongful termination after nearly 20 years on the faculty of Tulane's Medical School.

After discovering her affiliation, Bernofsky filed a motion for Berrigan's recusal. The judge denied the motion, declaring: "There is no basis for the plaintiff's suggestion that [my] impartiality might reasonably be questioned by virtue of these two circumstances..."

Berrigan subsequently accepted Tulane's pretext for Bernofsky's termination, and although he had received notice of a new $250,000 grant award from the U.S. Air Force 10 weeks before he was terminated, she canceled the pending jury trial on this and other contested issues of material fact and ruled that: "...Bernofsky was not qualified because of his lack of extramural funding..." and "...terminated for his inability to meet his salary needs...".

Following that ruling, Tulane paid Berrigan $5,500 to teach a summer course in 2000 on the Greek Isle of Thessaloniki, giving the appearance of a quid pro quo. Bernofsky cites this as among the alleged violations of existing laws and canons of judicial conduct that are best determined by an investigation.