— BACK TO PREVIOUS LOCATION — Listing of Lawsuits, etc.   About Bernofsky  Case Calendar  More Options

Table of Exhibits Appendix Initial Lawsuit Reply Brief Order and Reasons Other Filings

Lawsuit Against Tulane University for Discriminatory Discharge
Pre-Trial Order
(Case No. 95-0358, Docket No. 114, August 30, 1996)

---

  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA  

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *	*
DR. CARL BERNOFSKY	*	CIVIL ACTION
Plaintiff	*	No. 95:0358
VERSUS	*
	*	SECTION "C" (2)
TULANE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL	*
Defendant	*	JUDGE BERRIGAN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *	*

  PRE-TRIAL ORDER

1. Pre-Trial Conference

A pre-trial conference was held before United States District Court Judge, Honorable Ginger Berrigan, Section "C" on June 26, 1996, Eastern District of Louisiana at 11:00 a.m.
 

2. Appearance of Counsel

(a) Appearing on behalf of plaintiff Dr. Carl Bernofsky:
 
Roger D. Phipps
Evanthea P. Phipps
PHIPPS & PHIPPS
210 Baronne Street, Suite 1410
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
(504) 524-2298

(b) Appearing on behalf of defendant The Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund:
 
G. Phillip Shuler, III, T.A. (12047)
Julie D. Livaudais (1183)
Desha D. Dardenne (23019)
CHAFFE, McCALL, PHILLIPS, TOLER & SARPY, L.L.P.
2300 Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70163-2300
Telephone: (504) 585-7000

3. Description of Parties

Plaintiff, Dr. Carl Bernofsky, a 62-year-old Jewish male who was employed by defendant, Tulane University Medical School, in the capacity of Research Professor. Dr. Bernofsky is a citizen of the United States and domiciled in New Orleans.

Defendant, Tulane University Medical School, is a non-profit organization dedicated to medical research and education. The proper legal entity is the Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund.

All necessary parties are joined.
 

4. Jurisdiction

This court has jurisdiction of this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, §1343, and 28 U.S.C. §1367. This suit is authorized and instituted pursuant to: 1) 42 U.S.C. §1981, which provides relief from violation of plaintiff's right to be free of unlawful discrimination in the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, on the basis of race and ethnicity; and 2) 29 U.S.C. §623(a)(1) which prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee on the basis of age.

Additionally, the Court's supplemental jurisdiction is invoked for claims arising under Louisiana law.

Jurisdiction is not contested.
 

5. Pending or Contemplated Motions

Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment is pending.

Plaintiff may file Motions in Limine and a Motion To Strike Testimony that goes beyond fact testimony prior to trial.

Defendant may file Motions in Limine and a Motion To Strike Expert Testimony prior to trial.
 

6. Brief Summary of Material Facts Claimed

(a) Plaintiff's claims:

Dr. Bernofsky asserts the following racial claims of discrimination: #1) failure to promote/denial of tenure, #2) retaliation, harassment, and interference during employment, and #3) discharge. 42 U.S.C. §1981.

Dr. Bernofsky asserts the following age claims: #4) retaliatory discharge, and #5) discriminatory discharge. 29 U.S.C. §623.

Dr. Bernofsky's asserts the following state law claims: #6) breach of contract, #7) detrimental reliance under La. Civil Code Article 1967, #8) conversion La. Civil Code Article 2315, #9) environmental retaliation La. R.S. 30:2027 B, and #10) wanton and/or reckless disregard in the storage and/or handling of blood-borne pathogens and hazardous or toxic substances, i.e. chemicals under La. Civil Code Article 2315.3.⁽¹⁾

Footnote

1. Dr. Bernofsky's claims are based on the facts as previously set forth in his memoranda, affidavits, and all deposition testimony and exhibits accompanying previous memoranda.

Per the Court's instruction, an attempt has been made in this Pretrial Order to segregate the facts upon which Dr. Bernofsky relies, identifying facts that support each individual claim. However, many of the facts are relevant to and support more than one of Dr. Bernofsky's claims. In an effort to not repeat the individual facts, each fact has been generally segregated under one claim. However, since certain facts are applicable to more than one claim, additional facts other than those specifically segregated under an individual claim may apply to more than one claim.
 

(b) Plaintiff's material facts claimed are as follows:

Dr. Bernofsky is a respected research biochemist who remained at Tulane for nearly 20 years, painstakingly building a research program. In 1977, Dr. Bernofsky was promised that he would become tenured. This promise or representation was made by his Department Chairman, Dr. Rune Stjernholm. Until he was replaced by the new Chairman, Dr. Stjernholm continued to promise Dr. Bernofsky that he would become tenured. The 1976 Faculty Handbook provided to Dr. Bernofsky when he first arrived at Tulane provided that conversions to regular appointments could occur at any time.

In 1991, the Chairmanship of his department changed. Dr. Karam became the new Chairman. After Dr. Bernofsky requested the promised tenure from his new department chairman, he began to be harassed. Dr. Bernofsky's research efforts were hampered until he lost funding. Dr. Bernofsky was evaluated by a method that did not comply with the requirements set out by the Dean. In fact, the reviewers did not conduct an adequate or thorough review. Discrimination infected the review process. Based upon the poor review, Dr. Bernofsky was given certain conditions to meet. Among the most important condition was that he secure new grant funding. Dr. Bernofsky was terminated despite the fact that he secured a $250,000 grant from the Air Force to support his research program before the deadline established by Tulane for obtaining new grant funds passed.

In 1992, Dr. Bernofsky was awarded grant funds of $250,000 to purchase a sophisticated scientific instrument, an EPR, needed in his research. Dr. Bernofsky voluntarily taught an advanced course for 16 years. Throughout his career, Dr. Bernofsky published in respected scholarly journals and continued publishing following his termination by Tulane. Dr. Bernofsky is Jewish. At the time of his termination, he was 61 years old.

Dr. Bernofsky has alleged several claims: 1) That he was denied tenure because of his race; 2) That he was harassed, his research program interfered with, and retaliated against because of his race; and 3) That he was discharged because of his race.

Dr. Bernofsky has claimed that Tulane's decisions are also based on his age. After he asked Dr. Karam to recommend his name for official tenure, long promised to him, he began to experience harassment and interference with his research program. Dr. Bernofsky claims that Dr. Karam retaliated against him because of his request for tenure. Alleged problems with Dr. Bernofsky's performance began after he asked Dr. Karam about tenure.

Indisputably, only other Jewish professors have been ousted from the Biochemistry Department following Dr. Jim D. Karam's appointment as Chairman. This pattern, which Tulane hopes to dismiss as mere coincidence, supports Dr. Bernofsky's claim that Tulane's actions against him were based impermissibly on race and age.

Eminent scholars in his field have attested to Dr. Bernofsky's qualifications as a scientist, and as to the outstanding quality of his work evidenced in his funding record and publications. According to Professor Dr. Willem Koppenol, Chairman, Institute of Inorganic Chemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Dr. Bernofsky's work is respected by other leaders in the free radical field. Similarly, a leading American free-radical scientist, Dr. Garry R. Buettner, attests to the quality of Dr. Bernofsky's work as evident in his funding record and successful effort in bringing a $250,000 EPR instrument to Tulane.

A similarly-situated research professor, Dr. Su-Chen Li, has been retained. She has no grant funding in her own right. She has never generated a grant award on the strength of her own credentials. She occasionally teaches her husband's courses when he is unavailable and has no teaching responsibilities of her own. Another research professor, Dr. Jen-sie Tou, was converted in 1989 with an immediate grant of tenure despite being on a tenure track from 1972 to 1980 and on research status for another nine years. Despite their similar positions, Dr. Bernofsky was treated much less favorably. Tulane applied a different standard in its tenure decision to Dr. Bernofsky, a senior Jewish faculty member, than to Dr. Tou who lacked grant support and had fewer publications.

Dr. Bernofsky and Dr. Tou were both recommended for tenure at about the same time. Dr. Bernofsky brought over $600,000 to Tulane from 1980-1988. In comparison, Dr. Tou had brought about in about $65,000. By that time, Dr. Bernofsky had brought over $175,000 to Tulane for covering Tulane's overhead expenses. Additionally, Dr. Bernofsky had many more publications than did Dr. Tou. However, unlike Dr. Tou, Dr. Bernofsky's name was not forwarded for consideration to the appropriate committee when his name was recommended for tenure by Dr. Stjernholm. In fact, the entire process was kept secret from him.

Because of the fact that Dr. Bernofsky was discriminatorily denied tenure, he was treated differently than other professors, who received support in the form of stipends to pay graduate students working in their laboratories and funds to cover the salaries paid to their technical and postdoctoral assistants. Had the grant money Dr. Bernofsky paid to cover his own staff been available for support of his own salary, Tulane would not be able to assert that he cost the Department money or was not an asset in a business sense.

Harassment and interference were also directed against two other senior Jewish faculty members. One accepted early retirement and the other has had her laboratories reassigned out of the Biochemistry Department. At her deposition, one of these professors, Dr. Melanie Ehrlich, testified that she believed Dr. Karam's discrimination against her "may well [have] a Jewish component."

Despite his qualifications as Research Professor, Tulane terminated Dr. Bernofsky and retained and hired less-qualified faculty in the Biochemistry Department. Following his termination, Dr. Bernofsky immediately set out to transfer his Air Force grant to another institution and to seek a comparable position elsewhere. However, the onset of cancer has affected his ability to accomplish this goal.

Additionally, Dr. Bernofsky has alleged detrimental reliance under Louisiana law. His former Chairman made representations to him that he would become tenured. Relying on these representations, Dr. Bernofsky focused his efforts on building his program at Tulane; he brought a $250,000 EPR instrument to the Medical School and endeavored to nurture the development of a free radical research program. Dr. Bernofsky did not undertake a major effort to move his program elsewhere. Subsequently, when he was thrown out at 61 years of age based on a review that failed to follow University guidelines, he suffered damage. Detrimental reliance occurs where a promise or representation is made. A person relies on that promise and is later harmed by having done so.

In addition to representations by Dean Hamlin and Dr. Stjernholm, Dr. Karam informed Dr. Bernofsky that he had de facto tenure because he had been at Tulane for so long. This explanation in response to Dr. Bernofsky's request that Dr. Karam recommend his name for official tenure parallelled the 1976 Faculty Handbook provisions on tenure. Subsequent to these conversations with Dr. Karam, Dr. Bernofsky secured additional grant funds in the amount of $250,000.

Dr. Bernofsky alleges that under the terms of the contract governing his relationship with Tulane, he is tenured. The Dean and his former Department Chairman confirmed in writing that he would become the next tenured faculty member in the Department. At the time of Dr. Tou's conversion, the Dean, the Chancellor, and others on the Personnel & Honors Committee stated that an appointment in excess of seven years automatically carries tenure. This was a major factor leading to Dr. Tou's grant of tenure. Subsequent to the representations that Dr. Bernofsky would become tenured, his appointment carried the prospect of tenure. Under the contract, such an appointment in excess of seven years automatically carries tenure. After seven years, Dr. Bernofsky could be dismissed only by following the dismissal procedures set forth in the contract applicable to tenured professors. Also, under Louisiana law, oral promises are enforceable in circumstances where the employee provides extra benefits to the employer beyond the performance of his duties. Dr. Bernofsky brought a $250,000 EPR to the School and generated over $2 million in grant funds with $600,000 going to cover overhead costs which make research space available.

Dr. Bernofsky complained about a serious environmental hazard: wastes consisting of animal hair, blood, and chemicals raining down from the laboratories above. His concerns were ignored. Shortly thereafter, he was terminated. The hazardous and/or toxic substances (including blood-borne pathogens) were improperly handled or stored by Tulane in a reckless manner without concern for the safety of the public, which included Dr. Bernofsky and his staff.

Finally, all of the equipment and supplies Dr. Bernofsky brought with him to Tulane or purchased with grant or personal funds was seized by Tulane when he was locked out of the laboratories previously assigned to him. This exercise of control over Dr. Bernofsky's equipment and supplies greatly affects his ability to conduct research or be a viable candidate for relocating his research program and has added to his injury.
 

(c) Defendant's material facts claimed are as follows:

Defendants assert the following affirmative defenses:

(1) A portion of plaintiff's claims under Section 1981 and the ADEA have prescribed;

(2) Plaintiff's claim of damages under Louisiana Civil Code Articles 2315 and 2315.3 have prescribed;

(3) Plaintiff's claims of damages under La. R.S. 30:2027 have prescribed; and

(4) Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages, if any.

Dr. Carl Bernofsky ("Dr. Bernofsky" or "plaintiff") began his employment with Tulane University School of Medicine ("Tulane" or "defendant") in 1975 as a Visiting Associate Professor. According to the Tulane Faculty Handbook ("the handbook"), "an appointment of a visiting professor" constitutes a "special" appointment. The handbook further provides, "A Special appointment neither gives tenure nor is to be regarded as a probationary appointment that may lead to tenure."

In 1981, Dr. Bernofsky was appointed to Research Associate Professor and in 1983 he was appointed to Research Professor. According to the handbook, "The conditions of each appointment, including salary, rank, term of appointment and tenure, shall be stated and confirmed to the faculty member in writing by the dean of the school or college." Further, "[a]ny subsequent extensions or modifications of an appointment and any special understandings, shall be stated and confirmed in writing by the dean of the school or college." The conditions of Dr. Bernofsky's appointment, clearly stated to him in writing year after year, were that his status was a research professor, he was on a non-tenure track, and his appointments were for a one-year term each. The research professor classification at Tulane is used only in the School of Medicine and the School of Public Health. This exception is stated in the handbook: "In view of practices prevailing at many medical centers, the School of Medicine and the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine may continue to use academic ranks in the titles designated for faculty members primarily engaged in research, e.g., Research Associate Professor. Service in such positions cannot lead to tenure. However, conversion from such a position to a regular full-time faculty appointment or vice-versa, may be made, but only once and only within the first seven years of full-time faculty service...".

As an Associate Research Professor and then a Research Professor at Tulane Medical School, Dr. Bernofsky had clearly been in non-tenure track positions since the commencement of his employment with Tulane. Although he could have been converted to the tenure track, such conversion must have occurred within the first seven years of full time employment. It did not. Dr. Bernofsky continued to accept his annual non-tenure track appointments. He claims that on an informal, probably once a year basis, he would ask his department chairman, "How about tenure, Rune?" But he never formally requested to be considered for tenure, which would have involved submitting a dossier to the Promotions and Tenure Committee. Tenure decisions are made on a School of Medicine-wide basis.

As a Research Professor, Dr. Bernofsky was responsible for obtaining research grants to support his salary. In return, he was provided laboratory space, use of equipment owned by Tulane and support services. Dr. Bernofsky was aware of this responsibility, however he ignored it and the Department of Biochemistry was forced to pay a large majority, and many times all, of Dr. Bernofsky's salary. In fact, the Biochemistry Department of Tulane University School of Medicine paid 100% of Dr. Bernofsky's salary from academic year 1993-1994 through his termination and approximately 70% of Dr. Bernofsky's salary for the academic years beginning in 1990 and ending in 1992-1993, as he had no salary support form grant funding. Between 1986 and 1990, the Department of Biochemistry paid approximately 80% of Dr. Bernofsky's salary per academic year. The other Research Professor, Dr. Su-Chen Li collaborates with her husband, Dr. Yu-Teh Li, Professor of Biochemistry, in order to obtain grant funding and produce quality research. Dr. Su-Chen Li's salary was paid 100% through extramural grant funding for the period 1988-91, and from 1991 through the present, only 25% of Dr. Su-Chen Li's salary has been paid by funds from the Department of Biochemistry. Further, Dr. Su-Chen Li has taught courses and participated in committee activities within the Biochemistry Department in order to support the portion of her salary that is not paid by grant funds.

Dr. Bernofsky was also expected to produce quality research results, participate in activities of the Biochemistry Department, including teaching and committee activities, and assist in maintaining a collegial atmosphere in the Biochemistry Department. However, his teaching load and committee assignments were far less than those of tenured professors, in keeping with his research status. For some time, Dr. Bernofsky was unable to procure research grants sufficient to support his salary, and Tulane supplemented his funds in order to pay his full salary. Nearly all of the grants that Dr. Bernofsky applied for prior to his termination were rejected. Dr. Bernofsky's last research grant expired in 1993 and when the decision to terminate him was made, he had been unable to obtain a research grant to replace it. Dr. Bernofsky's production and publication of quality research results have severely diminished in recent years. While he tried to get funding for his research, he was consistently turned down. Dr. Bernofsky stopped teaching at the Tulane Medical School as he refused an offer in 1994, by Dr. James Karam, Chairman of the Biochemistry Department, to give ten (10) lectures in order to help justify the Biochemistry Department's payment of his full salary. In short, Dr. Bernofsky was willing to accept departmental funds as salary but unwilling to provide service to the department. In fact, the last time Dr. Bernofsky taught a course in the Biochemistry Department was in 1992. He refused to teach until he became tenured.

Dr. Bernofsky has not portrayed a collegial spirit during the course of his employment at Tulane. In the past, Dr. Bernofsky made an unsubstantiated allegation against one of his colleagues that the colleague had stolen from him. In addition, he stated publicly and without justification that Dr. Karam was using racist methods in faculty recruiting. This was based on the fact that he invited one of Dr. Bernofsky's assistants (instead of Dr. Bernofsky) to dinner with a faculty candidate who happened to be of the same ethnic minority as the assistant.

In May, 1994 a Biochemistry Faculty Review Committee, composed of Drs. Li, Steele and Stjernholm reviewed Dr. Bernofsky's performance and published its findings in a May 16, 1994 letter to Dr. Karam. The peer review committee concluded that Dr. Bernofsky had been extremely unsuccessful in obtaining research grants, that he had been receiving substantial amounts of salary support, and that his research results and publications were sparse and not of the quality expected of a Research Professor. The committee also concluded that he had taught no classes since 1992, was reclusive and did not participate in department affairs.

As a result of the poor performance of Dr. Bernofsky cited in the peer review, Dr. Karam recommended to Dr. James Corrigan, the Dean of the Medical School, that Dr. Bernofsky's appointment for academic year 1994-95 be renewed, but with stipulations. These stipulations, focusing on the requirements of the acquisition of research grant funding, activity within the Biochemistry Department and maintenance of a collegial attitude, were outlined in a May 24, 1994 letter from Dr. Karam to Dr. Bernofsky. These stipulations were also set forth in a document entitled "Recommendation For Faculty Personnel Action" which granted Dr. Bernofsky's conditional 1994-95 appointment. Dr. Bernofsky, in the following months, complied with none of these stipulations.

On August 9, 1994, Dr. Bernofsky was informed that his employment would be terminated December 31, 1994 if he was unable to obtain research grant funding to support his salary. On August 16, 1994, the date of termination was extended to February 28, 1995, by a letter from Dr. Karam to Dr. Bernofsky, signed and approved by Dr. Corrigan. The termination date, with a six (6) month termination notice effective September 1, 1994, was extended in an effort to accommodate Dr. Bernofsky's concerns that he was not being afforded due process according to University rules. The February 28, 1995 date of termination was confirmed in a letter to Dr. Bernofsky from Dr. Karam dated December 20, 1994. The February 28, 1995 termination date was again confirmed in a letter to Dr. Bernofsky from Dr. Karam dated January 31, 1995. Dr. Bernofsky had failed to meet the conditions of his 1994-95 appointment and was given six months notice of his termination, as required by Tulane School of Medicine policy.  

(d) Defendant's Defenses To Plaintiff's Claims:

1. Defendant asserts that plaintiff was never put up for tenure before the Promotions and Tenure Department of Tulane because he was not employed on a tenure-track. The fact that plaintiff is Jewish had absolutely nothing to do with this fact.

2. Defendant asserts that plaintiff never made a claim of any kind of discrimination prior to his discharge. Therefore, it is impossible that it retaliated against plaintiff based upon such complaints. Further, Tulane took no actions whatsoever against plaintiff based upon his being Jewish.

Defendant asserts that all decisions made in regard to plaintiff were made without regard to the fact that he is Jewish or his age. Tulane's policies and procedures are applied evenly to all professors regardless of their race, age, sex, national origin, religion or disability.

3. Defendant asserts that the fact that plaintiff is Jewish, was not in any way a factor in its decision to terminate his employment. Plaintiff was discharged because he was not satisfactorily performing in the position of Research Professor at Tulane Medical School. The decision to terminate plaintiff's employment was based upon legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.

4. Defendant asserts that plaintiff made no claim of age discrimination until well after his termination. Therefore, it is impossible that it retaliated against plaintiff based upon such complaints. Further, Tulane took no action against plaintiff based upon his age.

5. Defendant asserts that plaintiff's age was not considered in its decision to terminate his employment; plaintiff was discharged because he was not satisfactorily performing in the position of Research Professor at Tulane Medical School. The decision to terminate plaintiff's employment was based upon legitimate non-discriminatory reasons.

6. Defendant asserts that plaintiff did not have a contract of tenure with Tulane; he was employed in a non-tenure track position and received annual letters of re-appointment each year setting forth the fact that he was in a non-tenured position.

7. Defendant asserts that plaintiff was not promised that he would receive tenure and that a "promise" of tenure would be meaningless given the well-established internal university procedures for evaluation by committees and approval by the Chancellor and President prior to tenure being awarded.

Further, Defendant asserts that plaintiff was not promised that he would receive tenure; further, he could not have justifiably relied on such promises as he continually received annual reappointment letters clearly evidencing his employment in a non-tenured position, and because the procedures for receiving tenure, clearly set forth in the Faculty Handbook, do not allow for any one person to promise or award tenure.

Additionally, Defendant asserts that "de facto tenure" does not exist at Tulane Medical School; plaintiff was told that he would remain employed in the position of Research Professor in the Biochemistry Department as long as he satisfactorily performed the duties of the position. Finally, Defendant asserts that it did not breach the terms of plaintiff's conditional 1994-95 annual appointment. Plaintiff was fully informed in May, 1994 as to what was expected of him to be considered qualified for the position of Research Professor; he ignored his responsibility and was terminated after a six month notice period.

8. Defendant asserts that it did not convert any of plaintiff's property to its own. Dr. Bernofsky was given the opportunity to remove his personal property from the Medical School following his termination; the remaining equipment and supplies housed in the laboratory formerly assigned to Dr. Bernofsky are the property of Tulane as they were purchased with funds provided by Tulane University or extramural grant funds awarded to Tulane University.

9. Defendant asserts that plaintiff never made a complaint of any possible environmental violations. Plaintiff did make complaints pertaining to a flooding incident in the Medical School; however, the focus of plaintiff's complaint was not possible environmental violations, rather alleged damage to equipment necessary to his research.

10. Defendant asserts that it was not involved in the storage and/or handling of hazardous or toxic substances and further its handling of all materials within the Medical School is done with extreme caution and in compliance with all applicable regulations and laws. Further, plaintiff never reported to Tulane that he sustained any damage or injury from any hazardous or toxic substance, and in fact did not sustain any such damage or injury.

Aditionally, Defendant asserts that no actions taken against plaintiff were malicious, reckless or willful; all actions taken in regard to plaintiff's employment were in accordance with Tulane's non-discriminatory policies and procedures, made after giving plaintiff every opportunity to perform his job in a satisfactory manner.

Finally, plaintiff's claims are barred by applicable prescriptive periods.
 

(e) No Other Parties Are Part Of The Lawsuit
 

7. Single Listing of All Uncontested Material Facts

1) Plaintiff, Dr. Carl Bernofsky, is a Jewish 62-year-old male who is a citizen of the State of Louisiana and domiciled in Orleans Parish, Louisiana. Dr. Bernofsky's birthdate is November 22, 1933.

2) Defendant, Tulane University, School of Medicine, an institution of higher learning offering undergraduate and graduate courses, is a citizen of the State of Louisiana and domiciled in Orleans Parish Louisiana.

3) Plaintiff has a B.S. in Biology from Brooklyn College and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Kansas.

4) Plaintiff was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Case-Western Reserve University.

5) Prior to joining the faculty at Tulane University School of Medicine, Dr. Bernofsky was a Consultant at the Mayo Clinic, an Assistant Professor at the Mayo Foundation, and later, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at the Mayo Medical School, Rochester, Minn.

6) Plaintiff was hired by defendant in 1975 as a Visiting Associate Professor. In 1981, he was appointed to Research Associate Professor. Subsequently in 1983, defendant promoted plaintiff to the rank of Research Professor.

7) Dr. Bernofsky was over the age of forty when he was hired by Tulane as a Visiting Professor in 1975.

8) In November 1991, Dr. Jim D. Karam, a native of Lebanon, was named Biochemistry Department Chairman.

9) At all times relevant, defendant was an "employer" as defined by 29 U.S.C. Section 630(b) and is thus covered by and subject to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA") (29 U.S.C. Section 621 et seq) and affected commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 152.

10) The most recent faculty hires in the Biochemistry Department at Tulane are: Dr. Linda Hyman, Dr. Samuel Landry, Dr. James Nolan, and Dr. Arthur Lustig.

11) For the last ten years, plaintiff's research focused on the investigation of free radicals, mechanisms of inflammatory tissue damage, human cell models for early detection of toxic substances, tumor-specific endonucleases, and studies of environmental carcinogens.

12) Although the primary focus of Dr. Bernofsky's research involves free radicals, he also conducts research on enzymes and proteins.

13) Dr. Bernofsky's last Faculty Personnel Action Form provides that his appointment runs from July 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995, and contains the remarks that the continuation of this special appointment beyond the period specified is based upon institutional and program needs and/or renewal of grant support and satisfactory performance.

14) Dr. Karam's May 24, 1994 letter regarding Dr. Bernofsky's 1994 - 1995 reappointment provides at page 7: "Your record will be reviewed again in April 1995, after which I will make an appropriate recommendation to the Dean regarding your reappointment for the 1995 - 1996 academic year."

15) Dr. Bernofsky was sixty-one (61) years of age at the time he was terminated.

16) Dr. Su-Chen Li is a Research Professor in the Biochemistry Department. She was the only other Research Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the time of Dr. Bernofsky's termination.

17) Dr. Bernofsky's annual salary was approximately $65,000 at the time of his termination.

18) On August 9, 1994, Dr. Bernofsky was informed that his employment would be terminated effective December 31, 1994 if he was unable to obtain research grant funding to support his salary.

19) On August 16, 1994, the date of termination was extended to February 28, 1995, by a letter from Dr. Karam to Dr. Bernofsky, signed and approved by Dean Corrigan. The termination date, with a six (6) month termination notice effective September 1, 1994, was extended in response to Dr. Bernofsky's concerns that he was not being afforded due process according to University rules.

20) Dr. Samuel Landry was hired as an Assistant Professor of Biochemistry on January 4, 1993.

21) Dr. Linda Hyman, a Jewish woman, was hired as an Assistant Professor of Biochemistry on August 6, 1993.

22) Dr. James Nolan was hired August 1, 1995 as an Assistant Professor of Biochemistry.

23) Dr. Arthur Lustig, a Jewish male, will join the Biochemistry Department as an Associate Professor of Biochemistry in August, 1996.

24) Dr. Bernofsky's grievance pertaining to the flooding incident was related only to the alleged damage to his equipment.

25) Dr. Karam has never represented to anyone that Dr. Bernofsky would be recommended for tenure or that he would receive the next available regular appointment.

26) Dr. Karam is married to a Jewish woman.

27) Dr. Karam is 58 years old.

28) On February 3, 1995, plaintiff received notice that a two-year $250,000 grant award would be funded by the United States Air Force, Department of Defense.

29) On or about February 10, 1995, plaintiff filed a charge alleging unlawful discrimation on the basis of age, 61, and religion, Jewish, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as required by Title VII, and the ADEA. Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural requirements, i.e., the filing of a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was a prerequisite of filing suit under those statutes.

30) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued plaintiff a "right to sue" notice August 22, 1995. This present action was amended within 90 days after receipt of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notice.
 

8. Single Listing of Contested Issues of Fact

1) Tulane made representations to Dr. Bernofsky that he would become a tenured member of the Biochemistry Department and was de facto tenured. Dr. Bernofsky reasonably relied on these representations. As a result, he suffered damage.

2) Under the contract governing Dr. Bernofsky's relationship with Tulane, conversion to a tenured faculty position can occur at any time. Dr. Bernofsky was qualified for a tenured position. An identically-situated non-Jewish faculty member was converted with a grant of immediate tenure and remains on the faculty. Dr. Bernofsky was never informed that he was recommended for tenure at the same time as the non-Jewish faculty member who was awarded tenure. Failure to inform Dr. Bernofsky of the tenure denial was contravened by Tulane's Constitution, the University By-Laws, and the contract governing Dr. Bernofsky's relationship with Tulane.

3) Dr. Bernofsky is qualified for the position of Research Professor at Tulane. He successfully performed as a Research Professor for more than 19 years. He secured grant funding, published in scholarly journals, voluntarily lectured, participated in committees, and was collegial. After he requested to be recommended for official tenure, he was harrassed, his research efforts were hampered until he lost funding, and he was evaluated by a method the did not comply with the requirements set forth by the Dean. A similarly-situtated non-Jewish Research Professor was treated more favorably and remains on the faculty. Despite securing additional grant funding, Dr. Bernofsky was locked out of the laboratories assigned to him at Tulane. Tulane refused to promote him to a tenured position, and he was terminated.

4) Under the restructuring of the Biochemistry Department, there are no plans to continue the Research Professor position; however, a younger professor was hired to replace Dr. Bernofsky's expertise. This younger professor conducts similar scientific investigations. Recent hires in the Biochemistry Department at Tulane are under forty years of age. Dr. Bernofsky has more publications to his credit, has a long track record of generating grant funding as a principal investigator with national granting agencies, and has brought more research projects to successful fruition than any of the three younger professors.

5) Alleged problems with Dr. Bernofsky's performance, and claims of noncollegiality were not cited as problematic until after Dr. Bernofsky complained to Dr. Karam about not being converted to a tenured position.

6) Dr. Bernofsky has made reasonable attempts to mitigate his damages.

7) Flooding incidents involving blood, animal hair, and chemicals occurred into Dr. Bernofsky's laboratory. Despite Dr. Bernofsky's repeated complaints to the University, Tulane took no meaningful action to correct the environmental and health hazards associated with the flooding.

8) While Dr. Bernofsky was employed by Tulane as a Research Professor, he reported an environmental violation to Tulane. He reported the violation to responsible parties in good faith. Tulane then took adverse employment action against him.

9) Dr. Bernofsky secured almost every item in the laboratories where he worked at Tulane either through personal funds or grant funds. Dr. Bernofsky owns the equipment he paid for personally.

10) As to the remainder, he has a greater possessory right than does Tulane. Tulane locked plaintiff out of the laboratories assigned to him and converted all his laboratory equipment and supplies to defendant's own use. Additionally, Tulane took possession and control of Dr. Bernofsky's last paycheck.

11) Special Damages: Plaintiff is entitled to special damages for loss of his research equipment and supplies pursuant to his cause of action for environmental retaliation; triple damages should be awarded ($300,000 x 3).

(See Appendix for specificity on contested material facts 1 - 11 above.)
 

BREACH OF CONTRACT WITH PARTICULARITY AND SPECIFICITY

12) Portions of grant applications provided to Dr. Bernofsky by his former Chairman, Dr. Stjernholm, provide confirmation in writing by the Dean of the Medical School of Dr. Stjernholm's oral promise concerning Dr. Bernofsky's appointment at Tulane. These documents satisfy the contractual provision at Article II, Section 1, page 26 which requires that any modifications or special understandings shall be stated and confirmed in writing.

13) Article II, Section 7, page 26 provides: "Nothing in this statement shall prevent a special faculty appointment from being converted into a regular appointment at the option of the University and the School or College to which the faculty member is attached." This provision demonstrates that it was permissible to recommend Dr. Bernofsky's position be converted to a tenured position, i.e., an appointment with immediate tenure, at any time.

14) In fact, Dr. Stjernholm attempted to convert Dr. Bernofsky's position in 1989. Had Dr. Bernofsky been told this fact, certain procedures would have been available to him under his contract with Tulane to appeal the tenure denial decision.

15) In 1977, when Dr. Stjernholm provided Dr. Bernofsky with copies of documents evidencing the promise of tenure and gave verbal statements confirming this written documentation, Dr. Bernofsky believed that his status carried the prospect of tenure. This belief was based on Dr. Stjernholm's representations signed by the Dean.

16) Under the contract governing Dr. Bernofsky, i.e., the 1976 Faculty Handbook, an appointment that carries "the prospect of tenure" is considered a probationary appointment (See Article II, Section 6, page 26). Article III, Section 1, page 27 states: "The purpose of the probationary period is to provide opportunity for demonstration of the suitability of the appointee..." Article III, Section 5 states: "Any appointment after the faculty member has completed the probationary period automatically carries tenure." (emphasis added)

17) Article III, Section 3, page 27 provides: "The probationary period shall not exceed seven years..." Article III, Section 2, page 27 provides that appointments that carry "the prospect of tenure," such as that of Dr. Bernofsky until his tenure was officially recognized by Tulane, shall receive year-to-year appointment letters.

18) Dr. Bernofsky has stated that Dr. Stjernholm repeatedly informed him that he was working to come through with his promise of tenure. Until this promise was fulfilled, Dr. Bernofsky received annual appointment letters which he understood would be continued until official tenure was granted to him. Other research faculty such as Dr. Jen-sie Tou received similar yearly appointment letters. The fact that Dr. Tou received yearly appointment letters preceding her conversion to a position with an immediate grant of tenure, in no way prohibited her from receiving tenure.

19) When Dr. Stjernholm recommended Dr. Tou for tenure, certain members of Tulane's administration involved in reviewing her credentials argued that Dr. Tou already had automatic tenure, i.e., de facto tenure under the provisions of the Faculty Handbook. Subsequently, Dr. Tou was converted in 1989. Through conversion, Dr. Jen-sie Tou became a tenured Associate Professor in the Biochemistry Department, the exact same department in which Dr. Bernofsky was a faculty member.

20) The conversion, which Tulane now claims is prohibited, occurred after publication of the 1986 Handbook that Tulane has asserted governs Dr. Bernofsky's relationship with Tulane. The provision limiting conversion "only within the first seven years of full-time faculty service" was not applied in the case of Dr. Jen-sie Tou.

21) Tulane's attempt to suggest that the provision covers Dr. Bernofsky demonstrates the manifestly unequal application of University rules in Dr. Bernofsky's case. Additionally, Tulane dispensed with "special" appointments in 1979-80, according to Dean Hamlin.

22) In addition to refusing to honor the tenure obligation under the terms of the contract governing Dr. Bernofsky's relationship with Tulane, the 1976 Faculty Handbook, Tulane also violated Dr. Bernofsky's appointment for the 1994-95 academic year. Despite the fact that Dr. Karam's May 24, 1994 letter violated controlling provisions of Dr. Bernofsky's contract with Tulane as set forth in the 1976 Faculty Handbook and modified by Dr. Stjernholm's promise of tenure, Dr. Bernofsky met the conditions as outlined in Dr. Karam's letter. He was awarded a grant for $250,000 from the Air Force before his termination date as set forth by Dr. Karam. Nonetheless, Dr. Bernofsky was locked out of his laboratories on May 3, 1995, while settlement negotiations were under way.

23) In addition to refusing to honor the tenure obligation under the terms of the contract governing Dr. Bernofsky's relationship with Tulane, the 1976 Faculty Handbook, the Dean was not entitled to make Dr. Bernofsky's 1994-95 appointment a terminal appointment. Under the terms of the contract, Dr. Bernofsky was automatically tenured; therefore the termination violated his rights under the contract. The 1976 Faculty Handbook, Article V, Termination of Tenure provides:

Section 1. Termination of an appointment with tenure or of a special or probationary regular appointment before the end of the specified term may be effected only for (i) financial exigency, (ii) bona fide discontinuance of a program or a department of instruction, (iii) incapacity for medical reasons, (iv) the attainment of retirement age as defined in Article XIII hereof, or (v) for adequate cause.

Section 2. Termination for adequate cause shall only be effected in accordance with the dismissal procedures set forth in Article VI hereof. The term "adequate cause" shall mean unfitness to teach for reasons which include but are not limited to incompetence, lack of scholarly objectivity and integrity, serious misuse of the classroom or of academic prestige, serious interference with the academic freedom of others, gross personal misconduct, or conviction of participation or conspiracy to overthrow the Government by force.

Section 3. Where termination of appointment is based upon financial exigency or bona fide discontinuance of a program or department of instruction, Article VI shall not apply, but faculty members shall be able to have the issues reviewed by the faculty of the School of College in which they hold appointment, then by the Senate Committee on Faculty Tenure, Freedom and Responsibility, with ultimate review of all controverted issues by the Tulane Board of Administrators. ... In every case of financial exigency, the faculty members concerned shall be given notice as soon as possible and never less than twelve months' notice, or in lieu thereof they shall be given severance salary for twelve months. ...

24) Even though Tulane was not entitled to make Dr. Bernofsky's 1994-95 appointment "conditional," Dr. Bernofsky nevertheless met Tulane's conditions of his "conditional appointment." Regardless, Tulane discharged Dr. Bernofsky.

25) Dr. Bernofsky never rejected the offer to be on the Seminar Committee. Dr. Bernofsky accepted the offer. Dr. Karam then declined Dr. Bernofsky's acceptance. Likewise, Dr. Bernofsky never refused to teach.

26) Under the terms of the contract governing Dr. Bernofsky's relationship with Tulane, the 1976 Faculty Handbook, Dr. Bernofsky could not be terminated with a mere six months notice. Dismissal procedures for tenured professors were required.

27) Plaintiff is suffering continuing and irreparable injury by being deprived of his position of employment with Tulane, loss of his $250,000 research grant, his equipment secured over the years with personal and grant funding, the chemical compounds synthesized for ongoing and future projects, his inventions, the use of his laboratories for continuation of his ongoing research projects, and preservation of his valuable tissue samples which he has safeguarded for study for over twenty years. He is entitled to reinstatement with official tenure.
 

TULANE

28) Dr. Bernofsky never held a tenured or tenure track position while employed at Tulane. Further, Dr. Bernofsky was never converted to a tenure track position.

29) The Tulane Faculty Handbook provides that conversion of a Research Professor in the School of Medicine to the tenure track must occur within the first seven years of full-time employment.

30) During the course of his employment as a non-tenured Research Professor, Dr. Bernofsky's appointment was renewed annually for increments of one academic year.

31) A primary obligation of a Research Professor at Tulane School of Medicine is to generate the majority of his salary through extramural grant funding as department funds are not intended to cover the cost of salaries of Research Professors within the Department of Biochemistry.

32) For several years before his termination, Dr. Bernofsky was unable to procure research grants sufficient to support the majority of his salary, and the Biochemistry Department supplemented his grant funds or paid his full salary, thus, Dr. Bernofsky was not qualified for the position of Research Professor at Tulane University.

33) Dr. Bernofsky did not sit on any committee within the Biochemistry Department from 1993 until his termination. Dr. Bernofsky was not teaching any courses at the medical school at the time the decision to terminate his employment was made. The last time Dr. Bernofsky taught in the Biochemistry Department was in 1992. Dr. Bernofsky never taught an entire course at Tulane; rather, he taught portions of courses led by other professors.

34) For several years before his termination, Dr. Bernofsky's published research results were sparse; further, Dr. Bernofsky failed to publish research in quality, respected medical journals.

35) The other Research Professor within the Biochemistry Department obtained sufficient extramural grant funds to support the majority of her salary and participated in teaching and departmental activities to support her salary.

36) The Faculty Review Committee appointed to review Dr. Bernofsky was a non-biased group.

37) Dr. Bernofsky registered no objection of bias or unfairness at the time of the appointment of the Faculty Review Committee.

38) The Faculty Review Committee reviewed Dr. Bernofsky's performance and published its findings in a May 16, 1994 letter to Dr. Karam.

30) In its report, the committee concluded that Dr. Bernofsky had been unsuccessful in obtaining research grants, that he had been receiving substantial amounts of salary support from the Biochemistry Department, and that his research results and publications were sparse and not of the quality expected of a Research Professor at Tulane. The committee also concluded that he had taught no classes since 1992, was reclusive and did not participate in Department affairs.

40) Based upon the findings of the Faculty Review Committee, Dr. Karam recommended to Dean Corrigan that Dr. Bernofsky's appointment for academic year 1994-95 be renewed a conditional appointment. The conditions of the 1994-95 reappointment were outlined in a May 24, 1994 letter from Dr. Karam to Dr. Bernofsky and approved by Dean Corrigan.

41) One of the conditions of the 1994-95 appointment was that Dr. Bernofsky teach lectures in order to justify full support of his salary from departmental funds in light of the fact that he had no extramural grant funding. Dr. Bernofsky refused to teach the lectures as required by his conditional appointment.

42) On August 9, 1994, Dr. Bernofsky was informed that his employment would be terminated effective December 31, 1994 if he was unable to meet the conditions of his appointment.

43) On August 16, 1994, the date of termination was extended to February 28, 1995, by a letter from Dr. Karam to Dr. Bernofsky, signed and approved by Dean Corrigan. The termination date, with a six (6) month termination notice effective September 1, 1994, was extended in response to Dr. Bernofsky's concerns that he was not being afforded due process according to University rules.

44) Dr. Bernofsky was terminated effective April 21, 1995 because he was not qualified for the position of Research Professor.

45) No person has been hired in the non-tenure track position of Research Professor in the Department of Biochemistry since the termination of Dr. Bernofsky.

46) Dr. Bernofsky did not report or threaten to report a violation of an environmental statute or regulation. Further, Dr. Bernofsky never expressed a concern of any environmental violation.

47) Dr. Bernofsky has no specific factual evidence of race or age discrimination before or after the arrival of Dr. Karam at Tulane.

48) Dr. Melanie Ehrlich has never alleged discrimination based upon race, religion, or age.

49) Dr. Cohen has never accused Dr. Karam of discrimination based upon race, religion, or age. No other employee has ever accused Dr. Karam of discrimination, other than Dr. Bernofsky.

50) Dr. Bernofsky filed a series of four grievances against Dr. Karam but never alleged discrimination against him on any basis.

51) The grievances were heard at a grievance hearing before a Grievance Committee comprised of Dr. Bernofsky's peers; the members of the Grievance Committee unanimously denied all of Dr. Bernofsky's grievances against Dr. Karam.

52) Dr. Bernofsky questioned Dr. Karam about the possibility of conversion to a tenure track position. Dr. Karam inquired about the issue of Dr. Bernofsky's possible tenure was told by Dean Corrigan that Dr. Bernofsky could not be converted to a tenure track position as Dr. Bernofsky had been employed on a full-time basis for more than seven years.

53) Dr. Bernofsky was never promised that he would receive tenure from Tulane or that he would be converted to a tenure track position.

54) "De facto tenure" does not exist at Tulane University.

55) Dr. Bernofsky was told by Dr. Karam that his appointment would be renewed annually if he continued to remain qualified for the position of Research Professor.

56) Dr. Bernofsky was not justified in relying upon any alleged promise that he would receive tenure or be converted to a tenure track position.

57) Dr. Bernofsky did not portray a collegial spirit within the Biochemistry Department of Tulane Medical School.

58) Tulane did not convert any of Dr. Bernofsky's property to its own.

59) Dr. Bernofsky, as Principal Investigator, does not own the equipment or supplies which were purchased with research grant funds that were granted in the name of Tulane University.

60) Dr. Karam did not harass Dr. Bernofsky nor did he interfere with any of Dr. Bernofsky's research efforts.

61) Dr. Bernofsky repeatedly accumulated large deficits on his grant accounts.
 

9. The Contested Issues of Law

1. Whether Dr. Bernofsky states a claim for discrimination on the basis of race under 42 U.S.C. 1981 for denial of tenure (failure to promote); harassment and interference with his research program and employment; and/or discharge.

2. Whether Dr. Bernofsky states a claim for age discrimination under the ADEA with respect to his discharge and/or retaliation on the basis of his age in violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 623 et seq. and/or La. R.S. 23:972-975.

3. Whether Tulane's denial of tenure to Dr. Bernofsky and its subsequent retaliation culminating in discharge form a "continuing violation" under 42 U.S.C 1981.

4. Whether Tulane's denial of tenure to Dr. Bernofsky and its subsequent retaliation culminating in discharge form a "continuing violation" under the ADEA.

5. Whether a subjective evaluation infected with racial discrimination at any level must be given deference by the trier of fact.

6. Whether a plaintiff must be replaced with a person outside the protected class to prevail on a claim of race and/or discrimination.

7. Whether Dr. Bernofsky states a claim under Louisiana Civil Code Art. 2315 for damage to his professional relationships and his research program.

8. Whether Tulane's conduct was with "malice or reckless indifference" to Dr. Bernofsky's federally protected rights protected under 42 U.S.C. 1981.

9. Whether age and/or race related remarks reflecting bias create an inference of discriminatory intent.

10. Whether race and/or age related remarks made by Dr. Karam, or Dr. Steele provide direct evidence of intentional discrimination.

11. Whether Tulane's adverse action was "willful" under the ADEA.

12. Whether Tulane is required to establish that there exists comparable employment.

13. Whether a claim of detrimental reliance sounds in contract or tort.

14. Whether under the theory of detrimental reliance Tulane need do anything separate and apart from the action of its employee to be liable in damages to Dr. Bernofsky.

15. Whether to impose liability on Tulane for the actions of its employee under the theory of detrimental reliance, the Tulane employee need only be in the course and scope of his employment when the tort occurred.

16. Whether the basis for imposing liability on the employer under detrimental reliance is respondeat superior.

17. Whether the theory of detrimental reliance does not depend on the agency concept of apparent authority.

18. Whether to prove discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and/or the ADEA it is sufficient for plaintiff to prove that race and/or age was "a motivating" factor in Tulane's decision to deny tenure (failure to promote); harass and interfere with his research program and employment; retaliate, and/or discharge him.

19. Whether an employer may unilaterally change the terms of an agreement or contract entered into by the employer and employee.

20. Whether unilateral changes by an employer in the form of revisions to the Faculty Handbook vitiate the prior written modification of the written contract previously in force between the parties.

21. Whether any of plaintiff's claims have prescribed under the applicable law.

22. Whether plaintiff states a claim of conversion under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2315.

23. Whether under Louisiana law it is sufficient to have a possessory interest to state a claim for conversion.

24. Whether plaintiff states a claim for damages under 2315.3.

25. Whether defendant's conduct was willful, wanton or reckless.

26. Whether damages for future income (front pay) should be determined by the Court or the jury.

27. Whether plaintiff had a contract with Tulane and, if so, whether it was breached.

28. Whether the doctrine of detrimental reliance applies on the facts of this case.

29. Whether Tulane breached the terms of the employment contract governing the relationship between Dr. Bernofsky and Tulane, i.e., the 1976 Faculty Handbook, in denying Dr. Bernofsky tenure, and in terminating Dr. Bernofsky.

30. Whether Dr. Bernofsky was "de facto" tenured or automatically tenured under the terms of the contract governing the relationship between Dr. Bernofsky and Tulane, i.e., the 1976 Faculty Handbook.

31. Whether Tulane breached the terms of the 1994-1995 appointment.

32. Whether Tulane breached the contract governing the relationship between Dr. Bernofsky and Tulane, i.e., the 1976 Faculty Handbook, when Tulane did not inform Dr. Bernofsky of its tenure denial decision.

33. Whether plaintiff states a claim under Louisiana Revised Statute 30:2027 et seq. for retaliatory action, i.e., adverse employment action, against Dr. Bernofsky after he complained in good faith about an environmental hazard - blood, hair, and chemicals - raining down into his laboratories from the floor above.

34. Whether Dr. Bernofsky's was deprived of his possessory rights to equipment which he purchased with personal funds, brought to Tulane from the Mayo Clinic, or purchased with grant funds he generated while at Tulane.

35. Whether plaintiff states a claim for wrongful exercise or assumption of authority over Dr. Bernofsky's equipment, essential to his ability to conduct research, deprived him of possession, permanently or for an indefinite time, and is a conversion.
 

Top 

10. Listing and Description of Exhibits Intended to Be Introduced at Trial

Parties have had the opportunity to exchange exhibits in order to formulate objections thereto. As to any exhibits to which the parties cannot agree, memoranda have been submitted on or before five working days prior to trial.
 

No.	Description	Objection
1a	Carl Bernofsky  Curriculum vitae (1995)	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled, unless stipulation offered by defendent
1b	Willem H. Koppenol  Curriculum vitae (1996)	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled, unless stipulation offered by defendent
1c	Garry R. Buettner Curriculum vitae (1996)	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled, unless stipulation offered by defendent
1d	J. Stuart Wood Curriculum vitae (1995)	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled, unless stipulation offered by defendent
1e	Samuel Landry Curriculum vitae (1995) (Prod. Reqst. #7 & 21)	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled, unless stipulation offered by defendent
1f	James M. Nolan Curriculum vitae (1994) (Prod. Reqst. #7 & 21)	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled, unless stipulation offered by defendent
2	Carl Bernofsky List of Funded Grants with CB as Principal Investigator (1975-1995)	Objection as to authenticity: Overruled, subject to proper authentication at trial
3	Carl Bernofsky  Publication; Journal of Organic Chemistry (1994)
4	Carl Bernofsky Publication; Journal of Organic Chemistry (1992)
5	Carl Bernofsky Publication; Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry (1995)
6	Carl Bernofsky Publication; Free Radicals in Biology and Medicine (1990)
7	Carl Bernofsky Publication; Free Radical Research Communications (1990)
8	Carl Bernofsky Publication; Biochemical Archives (1993)
9a	Ahsan U. Khan & Michael Kasha Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. (1994); Contains reference to FASEB Journal below (9b)
9b	Carl Bernofsky Publication; FASEB Journal (1991)
10	Kluwer Academic Publishers; Publication; Information for Contributors; Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry
11	Elsevier Press; Publication; Instructions to Contributors; Free Radical Biology and Medicine
12	Harwood Academic Publishers; Publication; Editorial policy and example of article in Free Radical Research (1996) showing acceptance by peer who reviewed article
13	American Chemical Society; Publication; 1996 Guidelines for Authors; Journal of Organic Chemistry
14a	Minnesota Biomedical Research Press; Publication; Contributor Information; Biochem Arch
14b	88/02/02; Robert Doerr to Carl Bernofsky; Acceptance letter of an article written by CB which was reviewed by a peer, Dr. Rao
15	Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Publication; Information for Authors; The FASEB Journal (1996)
16a	91/03/22; H. P. C. Hogenkamp to Carl Bernofsky; Requesting FASEB J and five Biochem Arch papers	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
16b	91/03/22; Basil A. Pruitt, Jr. to Carl Bernofsky; Request for FASEB J article	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
16c	87/12/09; J. Hakim to Carl Bernofsky; Request; Biochem Arch paper	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
16d	87/00/00; Andres O. M. Stoppani to Carl Bernofsky; Request; Biochem Arch paper and other related reprints	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
16e	88/10/30; Ohara Augusto to Carl Bernofsky; Request; Free Rad Res Commun and Biochem Archives papers	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
16f	Scientists to Carl Bernofsky; Reprint requests for the Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry paper (1995)	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
17	75/04/11; Carl Bernofsky to Rune L. Stjernholm; Acknowledgment of position and discussion of grants to be transferred
18	75/04/21; Rune L. Stjernholm & James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Official invitation to be Visiting Scientist
19	75/04/30; Carl Bernofsky to Rune L. Stjernholm; Accept invitation to be Visiting Scientist
20	75/05/22; Carl Bernofsky to Rune L. Stjernholm; Discuss transfer of NIH grant
21	75/05/27; Carl Bernofsky to Rune L. Stjernholm; Discuss transfer of NSF grant; Describe facilities and equipment transferred
22	75/06/09; Carl Bernofsky to Rune L. Stjernholm; Discuss NSF budget
23	75/06/24; National Cancer Institute to Tulane University; Notice of grant award ($31,960, direct costs)
24	75/07/01; Carl Bernofsky to Rune L. Stjernholm; Details of equipment shipped
25a	75/08/05; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Appointed Visiting Associate Professor
25b	71/03/00; Tulane Newsletter, 26A; Publication; Tulane University Senate Statement on Faculty Membership, Tenure, Retirement, Freedoms and Responsibilities
26	75/08/15; National Science Foundation to Tulane University; Notice of grant award ($29,200, direct & indirect costs)
27a	75/11/20; Carl Bernofsky to James T. Hamlin; Submit estimate for renovation of Room 6555
27b	75/10/28; Carl Bernofsky to TMC Maintenance Department; Alterations in Room 6555 to correct humidity and "mold-growth conditions"
28	75/12/18; Carl Bernofsky to Harold Martin; Agree to pay excess charges for lab renovation
29	76/01/00; 1976 Faculty Handbook (73 pp)
30	76/02/13; Carl Bernofsky to Leon D. Gauthier; Salary for CB not properly proportioned between NSF & NIH grants
31	76/06/16; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Renewal of Special Visiting Associate Professor appointment
32	76/09/24; Rune L. Stjernholm to Leukemia Society of America; Chairman's letter in support of nomination for Leukemia Society Scholar
33	77/02/15; Rune L. Stjernholm to Dean's Office; CB placed on non-salary status
34	77/08/22; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Changed appointment from Visiting Assoc Prof to Adjunct Assoc Prof (non-salaried position)
35	77/09/02; Rune L. Stjernholm to James T. Hamlin; Request that Dr. Bernofsky's title be changed from Adjunct Professor; would add him to the regular faculty if he could
36	77/09/23; Carl Bernofsky to National Institutes of Health; Grant Application (pages 1-3); Summary Statement reiterates promise of tenure
37	77/09/27; Carl Bernofsky to National Institutes of Health; Research Career Program Application (pages 1-3) with Hamlin and Stjernholm signatures; Contains promise of tenure
38	78/03/27; Rune L. Stjernholm to Internal Revenue Service; Attest to purchase of lab equipment with personal funds
39	78/06/19; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Reappointment as Visiting Associate Professor
40	78/07/10; Rune L. Stjernholm to John A. DeMoss; Recommendation of CB for a position; Promise of next tenured position (Prod. Reqst. #1)
41	78/08/25; Rune L. Stjernholm to Personnel Department; Faculty Personnel Action; Converted from non-salary to salary status
42	78/09/19; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Confirming status from part-time non-salaried to part-time salaried
43a	78/10/23; Hiram B. Curry to Rune L. Stjernholm; Recommendation of CB for a position; Praises CB for work at Case Western Reserve University; Promise of tenure
43b	78/11/16; Rune L. Stjernholm to Hiram B. Curry; Recommendation to a Chairmanship position for Carl Bernofsky (Prod. Reqst. #1)
43c	79/02/14; Hiram B. Curry to Rune L. Stjernholm; Thank you for nomination of Carl Bernofsky (Prod. Reqst. #1)
44	78/12/08; Rune L. Stjernholm to H. O. Kunkel; Recommendation of CB for a position; Promise of next tenured position to CB (Prod. Reqst. #1)
45	79/01/05; Rune L. Stjernholm to Robert A. Harris;  Recommendation of CB for a position; Promise of next tenured position to CB (Prod. Reqst. #1)
46	79/02/13; James T. Hamlin to Rune L. Stjernholm; Acknowledges faculty recommendation form for CB; Visiting appointment no longer appropriate; It is now necessary to change him from special to regular, to research associate, or terminate him.
47	79/06/08; Rune L. Stjernholm to Michael R. Waterman; Recommendation of CB for a position; Promise of next tenured position to CB (Prod. Reqst. #1)
48	79/06/19; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Reappointment as Visiting Associate Professor
49	79/07/09; Rune L. Stjernholm to Robert Roskoski, Jr; Recommendation of CB for position; Promise of next tenured position to CB (Prod. Reqst. #1)
50	79/11/16; Rune L. Stjernholm to Helen Kitzman; Special appointments converted to regular or research appointments
51	80/06/19; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Change of appointment from Visiting Associate Professor to Research Associate Professor
52a	80/08/18; Lawrence S. Lilienfield to Carl Bernofsky; Inviting CB to send materials for consideration for a Chairmanship at Georgetown University
52b	80/09/20; Carl Bernofsky to Lawrence S. Lilienfield; Interested in doing research rather than assuming a Chairmanship at this time
53	80/09/05; Carl Bernofsky to James T. Hamlin; Request that credentials be reviewed for consideration as Research Professor
54a	81/04/07; Tulane School of Medicine to Basic Science Faculty; Table of salaries in basic science departments for 1980-1981	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial
54b	89/03/29; Tulane School of Medicine to Basic Science Departments; Table of salaries for basic science departments for 1987-1988	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial
54c	91/04/01; Tulane School of Medicine to Basic Science Departments; Table of salaries in basic sciences for 1990-1991	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial
54d	94/03/22; Dennis B. McNamara to James J. Corrigan and Marian R. Walters; Letter and Table of salaries for basic science departments for 1992-3 and 1993-4	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial
55	81/06/19; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Renewal of Research Associate Professor appointment
56	82/05/19; Rune L. Stjernholm to Hulen B. William; Recommendation of CB for position; Promise of next tenured position to CB (Prod. Reqst. #1)
57	82/06/21; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Renewal of Research Associate Professor appointment
58	82/08/18; Rune L. Stjernholm to Joe L. Key;  Recommendation of CB for position; Promise of next tenured position to CB (Prod. Reqst. #1)
59	83/01/26; Harland G. Wood to Rune L. Stjernholm; Letter of recommendation for promotion to professor
60	83/01/27; Gertrude M. Tyce to Rune L. Stjernholm; Letter of recommendation for promotion to professor
61	83/02/03; Lars G. Ljungdahl to Rune L. Stjernholm; Letter of recommendation for promotion to professor
62	83/02/09; David A. Goldthwait to Rune L. Stjernholm; Letter of recommendation for promotion to professor
63	83/02/10; John T. Shepherd to Rune L. Stjernholm; Letter of recommendation for promotion to professor
64	83/04/23; Carl Bernofsky to Eamon M. Kelly; Request help in delaying implementation of plan to vacate laboratory
65	83/04/26; Eamon M. Kelly to Carl Bernofsky; The appropriate person to speak to is Dr. Walsh; Grievances should be addressed to head of the appropriate Senate Committee
66	83/05/03; Carl Bernofsky to Horton A. Johnson; Dr. Stjernholm's assurances are in conflict with those given by you to Dr. Koerner
67	83/05/03; Horton A. Johnson to Rune L. Stjernholm; Restate agreement about Room No. 6555 made last January returning the room to Pathology Department
68	83/05/04; Carl Bernofsky to Horton A. Johnson; Discussion of claim to Room No. 6555
69	83/06/20; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Congratulations on promotion to Research Professor
70	84/01/09; Illegible to Personnel Department; Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action; Reappointment as Research Professor
71	84/06/20; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Renewal of Research Professor appointment
72	85/01/29; Rune L. Stjernholm to Personnel Department; Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action; Reappointment as Research Professor
73	85/06/07; James T. Hamlin to Rune L. Stjernholm; Confirmed that a search must be conducted for any regular tenured position; Helen Kitzman, Affirmative Action Officer
74	85/06/20; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Renewal of Research Professor appointment
75	85/10/00; Personnel & Honors Committee, Tulane School of Medicine to General Medical Faculty; Policy Statement on Criteria for Academic Performance, Promotion and Tenure for Full-time Faculty in the School of Medicine
76	85/11/19; Rune L. Stjernholm to Claims Management Services; In-House Report of Occupational Injury to CB (Prod. Reqst. #1)
77	86/00/00; Illegible to Personnel Department; Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action; Reappointment of CB as Research Professor
78	86/06/20; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Renewal of Research Professor appointment
79a	86/07/00; Tulane University to General Medical Faculty; Faculty Handbook (1986)
79b	79/01/00; Tulane University to General Medical Faculty; Faculty Handbook (1979)
80	86/12/03; Rune L. Stjernholm to Personnel Department; Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action; Reappointment as Research Professor
81	87/03/18; G. Ananda Rao to Carl Bernofsky; Thank you for supporting this infant journal during its teething times by sending a wonderful paper with exciting results
82	87/06/20; James T. Hamlin to Carl Bernofsky; Renewal of Research Professor appointment
83	87/11/16; Yu-Teh Li to Richard G. Lynch; Recommendation of Theodore A.W. Koerner	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained
84a	88/01/19; Richard M. Weinshilbaum to Carl Bernofsky; Message to call; Re: nicontinamide metabolism	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
84b	88/01/15; Richard M. Weinshilbaum to Carl Bernofsky; Message to call; Re: CB's research	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
85	88/01/23; Carl Bernofsky to Richard M. Weinshilbaum; Collegiality; CB sent 4- and 6-pyridones to Weinshilbaum	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
86	88/05/12; Carl Bernofsky to Albert R. Garber; Collegiality and collaboration; Will visit lab next week	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
87	88/05/23; Rune L. Stjernholm to Personnel Department; Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action; Reappointment as Research Professor
88	88/06/20; Blackwell B. Evans to Carl Bernofsky; Renewal of Research Professor appointment
89	88/09/16; Millie Moore to Carl Bernofsky; Library unable to order journal on oxygen radicals
90	88/09/30; Peter J. Chapman to Carl Bernofsky; Thanks for sending the 4-hydroxynicotinic acid. Your authentic sample allowed an investigation of the identity of compounds	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
91	88/11/23; Carl Bernofsky to Michael Walla; Collaboration and collegiality	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
92	89/00/00?; Rune L. Stjernholm to Vincent A. Fulginiti; Performance evaluation of CB; Undated, unsigned, and retyped (Prod. Reqst. #1)
93a	91/09/23; Jim D. Karam to Yu-Teh Li and Melanie Ehrlich; Evaluation of Biochemistry's Graduate Program	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial; Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
93b	91/10/02; Melanie Ehrlich to Jim D. Karam; Graduate Program	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial; Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
93c	91/10/01; Yu-Teh Li to Jim D. Karam; Before the Department can improve, the research of the faculty must be strengthened	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial; Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
93d	89/00/00; Biochemistry Review Committee to Tulane School of Medicine; Summary of reviews of all aspects of the Department of Biochemistry; Individual evaluations by Tulane researchers including Marion Walters, Pamela Moore, Krishna Agrawal, Sanda Clejan, Charles Norris	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial; Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
93e	93/10/05; Executive Faculty to General Medical Faculty; (Section L) Agenda, TUMC Guidelines for the Assignment of Research Space, and map; "investigators who lose grant support should be given two grant cycles, or approximately three years, to regain support"	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial; Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
93f	90/08/24; Jim D. Karam to Vincent Fulginiti; Page 3 of letter of intent; Includes computers for certain areas of Biochemistry and plans for recruitment, turnover, and early retirement for faculty	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial; Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
93g	91/11/14; Jim D. Karam to Department of Biochemistry Faculty; Departmental Goals; roles that can be played by the Department	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial; Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
93h	94/00/00; Jim Karam to Grievance Committee; Lists Departmental support for Dr. Ehrlich	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial; Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
93i	91/12/00?; No name to Jim D. Karam; Negative evaluation of Dr. XXX (Dr. Ehrlich) by Stjernholm, according to a small post-it which Karam attached to an unsigned document	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial; Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
93j	91/05/15; Eugene Hamori to James D. Karam; Recommendations for allocation of departmental space for computing matters	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial; Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
93k	91/05/17; Eugene Hamori to Jim D. Karam; Recommendations for allocation of departmental space for computing matters	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial; Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
93l	91/05/16; Eugene Hamori to Computer group (Biochemistry Dept); Map of sixth floor	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial; Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
94	89/03/10; Rune L. Stjernholm to Personnel Department; Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action; Reappointment as Research Professor
95	89/04/14; Rune L. Stjernholm to Blackwell Evans; Recommends CB for a tenured position in Biochemistry (Prod. Reqst. #1)
96	89/08/31; Rune L. Stjernholm to Personnel Department; Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action; Reappointment as Research Professor
97	90/02/14; Carl Bernofsky to Vincent A. Fulginiti; Information about EPR proposal
98	90/03/20; Carl Bernofsky to NIH; NIH Grant (EPR), Pages 1-3, 54
99a	94/03/04; J. Larry Crain to Carl Bernofsky; Request return of $250,000 if EPR is not installed
99b	90/03/22; Vincent A. Fulginiti to National Institutes of Health; Dean's letter in support of grant application
99c	90/03/23; Vincent A. Fulginiti to National Institutes of Health; Confirm commitment for EPR Spectrometer
100	90/03/26; External reviewers to Carl Bernofsky; Reviews of a grant that was not funded	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial
101	90/03/29; Paul Guth to Members of Ad Hoc Faculty Track and Tenure Review Committee; Minutes of final meeting Re: age discrimination and tenure being an important issue to Basic Science Faculty
102	90/04/11; Vincent A. Fulginiti to Board of Governors, General Medical Faculty, and Student Body; Annual Report; Stjernholm asked to serve as Acting Chairman after mandatory retirement because of age; Dates of Corrigan and Evans deanship
103a	90/08/31; L. Dale Gauthier, Jr. to Rune L. Stjernholm; Support of Su-Chen Li is partially paid by departmental budget (25%)
103b	90/08/17; Carl Bernofsky to Sheryl Gros; Dr. Bandara's salary redistributed from NSF grant; Amended budget proposal
103c	90/05/18; Department of Biochemistry to Tulane School of Medicine; Breakdown of salaries for Department; CB and Bandara from DOD and Air Force grants
103d	91/01/05; Tulane University; NSF budget breakdown
104	90/05/30; Mary L. Smith to Carl Bernofsky; Packet on search guidelines and recruitment procedures for faculty positions	Objection as to authenticity: Moot, plaintiff will provide a clean copy at trial
105	90/06/04; Carl Bernofsky to Mary L. Smith; Request resolution of conflicts in policies regarding tenure conversion; Has notes from CB regarding statements of Evola Bates
106	90/06/19; Carl Bernofsky to NSF & DOD; Proposal budget NSF (years 1-3); Proposal budget DOD (years 1-3); Revised budget for DOD (3 years)
107	90/06/20; Vincent A. Fulginiti to Carl Bernofsky; Renewal of Research Professor appointment
108	90/08/01; Victor A. Westbrook to Gene D'Amour; Notice of NSF Grant Award to CB
109	90/09/18; Sheryl Gros to Carl Bernofsky; Alleged that CB used account no. 211604 without authorization
110	90/09/20; Carl Bernofsky to Sheryl Gros; Supplied proof that CB paid for personal UPS packages and did not use account no. 211604 as alleged
111	90/10/05; Rune L. Stjernholm to Personnel Department; Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action; Reappointment as Research Professor
112	90/12/08; NIH Study Section to Carl Bernofsky; Summary Statement
113	90/12/31; Carl Bernofsky to Vincent A. Fulginiti; Request that Free Radical Research Communications be continued in library
114	91/03/06; Carl Bernofsky to Art Heiss; Informed him that CB did not receive funding for EPR
115	91/03/12; General Medical Faculty to TMC Faculty; Minutes of meeting; Faculty salary increases, sources of income, % of indirect cost recovery, % distribution of funds to departments
116a	96/00/00; Shirley Bernofsky to Carl Bernofsky; List of salaries of Tulane employees paid by grants to Carl Bernofsky	Objection as to authenticity: Overruled, subject to proper authentication at trial
116b	91/04/12; Tulane University to Faculty; Fringe Benefit Chart 1991-92 and 1992-93	Objection as to authenticity: Overruled, subject to proper authentication at trial
116c	92/06/22; Carl Bernofsky to Department of Biochemistry; Chart showing projected salary distribution for DOD grant for Drs. Bernofsky, Bandara, and Tang for FY 1992-93	Objection as to authenticity: Overruled, subject to proper authentication at trial
117	91/06/20; Vincent A. Fulginiti to Carl Bernofsky; Renewal of Research Professor appointment
118	91/10/09; Carl Bernofsky to Andrew J. Buda; Collegiality and collaboration
119a	91/10/23; Carl Bernofsky to LEQSF; LEQSF Proposal (few pages)
119b	92/02/00; Reviewers to Board of Regents; LEQSF Proposals ranked for funding
119c	92/07/06; State of Louisiana Board of Regents to Tulane University Medical Center; Receipt/Gift Form for $360,000 - $250,000 was CB's LEQSF grant
120	91/10/23; Carl Bernofsky to LEQSF; LEQSF full proposal
121a	92/03/08; Melanie Ehrlich to Self; Notes regarding harassment, problems in Department, and Karam's referring to her labs as "ratholes"
121b	93/10/15; Yu-Teh Li to James J. Corrigan; Finding a long-term solution to the problem; Li never had a problem with Karam
121c	91/12/00?; No name to Jim D. Karam; Negative evaluation of Dr. XXX (Dr. Ehrlich) by Stjernholm, according to a small post-it which Karam attached to an unsigned document
122	92/00/00; Tulane Graduate School; Publication; Tulane Graduate School Bulletin, 1990-1992
123	92/01/08; Faculty Seminar Committee to Department of Biochemistry; CB's seminar; Also lists Ehrlich's and Cohen's seminars
124	92/02/01; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Request a meeting to discuss disposition of Dr. Cohen's spectrophotometer
125a	92/02/19; Jim D. Karam to William Baricos, Carl Bernofsky, Melanie Ehrlich, Yu-Teh & Su-Chen Li, Jen-sie Tou; Request help with application to NSF for departmental renovations
125b	92/03/12; Jim D. Karam to Yu-Teh & Su-Chen Li, Melanie Ehrlich, Jen-sie Tou, William Baricos, Carl Bernofsky; Memo thanking them for help with NSF Proposal for Infrastructure Development; Cover sheets for the grant
125c	92/03/02; Jim D. Karam to NSF; NSF Grant (Departmental Renovation); includes CB and five other researchers
126	92/02/21; Jim D. Karam to Personnel Department; Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action; Reappointment as Research Professor
127a	94/05/01; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Annual Report covering 5/1/92 to 4/30/94 (part of packet); Shows committee membership, service, teaching
127b	92/05/15; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Submit Annual Report; shows publications, grants, applications under review, meetings attended, committee membership, other services, and teaching
128	92/05/26; John Clements to General Medical Faculty; Minutes; Space Committee formed; Hans Weill assigns space on three CBR floors
129	92/06/03; Carl Bernofsky to NSF; NSF Grant (EPR), Pages 1-3
130	92/06/19; Vincent A. Fulginiti to Carl Bernofsky; Renewal of Research Professor appointment
131a	94/07/08; Carol Uhlich to Trish Waidhas; Faxed copies of correspondence Re: flood of 7/29/92
131b	92/07/01; Carl Bernofsky to E. Daniel Berry; Report flood damage to HPLC equipment
131c	92/07/07; Sylvester Johnson to Dan Berry; Results of investigation of flood in Room 6015; Confirmation of blood and animal hair
131d	92/07/08; E. Daniel Berry to Carl Bernofsky; Investigation of flood
131e	94/06/20; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Request for help in repairing flood-damaged HPLC equipment
131f	94/07/21; Carol Uhlich to Self; Notes regarding Tulane personnel being contacted Re: Room no. 6015 flood
132	92/07/27; Carl Bernofsky to Priscilla Kilcrease; Request specific approval of EPR components
133	92/10/12; Jim D. Karam to Samuel J. Landry; Offer position as Assistant Professor (Prod. Reqst. #7 & 21)	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained at this time
134	92/11/05; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Acknowledge plan to juggle salary funds for Bandara if his CAGNO grant is funded
135	92/12/15; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Theft of intellectual property
136	92/12/17; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Proposed meeting with Dr. Baricos
137	92/12/18; Yan Tang to Carl Bernofsky; Suresh Sikka looking for CB Re: EPR and a project he is working on indicating free radical role; Has note from CB to self (12/21/92) about work Dr. Sikka is doing that involves free radicals
138	92/12/19; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Summary of events surrounding NIH grant application incident and meeting with Baricos on 12/18/92
139	92/12/23; Jim D. Karam to James J. Corrigan; Requested that Corrigan look into the matter regarding the NIH grant application
140	92/12/23; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; He is turning the matter over to Dr. Corrigan for additional study and possible action
141	92/12/29; William H. Baricos to James J. Corrigan; Requests that Dean Corrigan write a letter documenting that Dr. Bernofsky's allegations are totally unfounded and clearing his name
142a	96/05/07; Ashton B. Avegno to Dan Berry; Fax of letters dated 01/26/93 (Building B) and 01/29/93 (Building C) to Mark Hebert for Gammacell 40 (10,000 lbs); Building C will support Gammacell 40 (Prod. Reqst. #11)
142b	93/01/26; Ashton B. Avegno to Mark Hebert; Reviewed structure of Building "B"; Floor cannot support Gammacell 40 (Prod. Reqst. #11)
142c	93/01/29; Ashton B. Avegno to Mark Hebert; Reviewed Building "C"; Gammacell 40 can be supported; Floor plan (Prod. Reqst. #11)
143	93/02/02; Carl Bernofsky to Susan D. Allen; Inquire about possible DOE funding for EPR enhancement
144	93/02/05; Carl Bernofsky to Susan D. Allen; Submit proposal for Tulane/Xavier EM project
145	93/02/13; Carl Bernofsky to Cindy Leissinger; Collaborative work involving blood samples received from her lab
146	93/03/08; Jim D. Karam to Personnel Department; Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action; Reappointment as Research Professor
147	93/04/27; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Discuss funding problems and possible alternatives
148	93/05/09; James N. McDougal to Carl Bernofsky; Invitation to visit and discuss with scientists; Interested in CB's work
149	93/05/16; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Agree to serve on Seminar Committee
150	93/05/19; Carl Bernofsky to Neal A. Vanselow; Request Space Committee to consider a site for the EPR
151	93/05/24; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Thanks for agreeing to serve on Seminar Committee
152a	93/05/25; Who's Who in Science and Engineering to Carl Bernofsky; Update listing
152b	94/05/08; Who's Who in the World to Carl Bernofsky; Update information for inclusion
153	93/05/26; James J. Corrigan to Carl Bernofsky; EPR spectrometer cannot be housed in Biochemistry Dept.
154	93/05/27; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Ask to address issues raised in his memo of 5/16/93; Suggests discriminatory treatment
155a	94/12/28; Carl Bernofsky to Board of Regents; Final Project Report on LEQSF grant for EPR spectrometer; Cover letter to Priscilla Kilcrease
155b	94/07/05; J. Larry Crain to Carl Bernofsky; Approval for purchases
155c	94/01/31; Carl Bernofsky to Arthur H. Heiss; Regarding EPR
155d	94/01/24; Arthur H. Heiss to Carl Bernofsky; Payment request
155e	94/08/11; J. Larry Crain to Carl Bernofsky; Approved purchase of EPR accessories (including heat exchanger upgrade)
155f	94/09/17; Carl Bernofsky to James J. Corrigan; Discuss Karam's refusal to approve CB's EPR requisitions and his approval of Tom Lyttle's requisition
155g	94/06/30; Carl Bernofsky to Susan D. Allen; Discuss transfer of authority for EPR; Request initial policy in grant
155h	94/09/07; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Discuss continued refusal to approve EPR requisitions
155i	94/08/01; Carl Bernofsky to J. Larry Crain; Request approval for purchase of EPR accessories (including heat exchanger upgrade)
155j	94/03/01; Carl Bernofsky to Ron Luckett; Request help in finding a site for EPR
155k	93/06/10; Carl Bernofsky to EPR Advisory Committee; Discuss Karam's refusal to accept EPR into Department; Will ask for an extension
155l	94/05/05; J. Larry Crain to Carl Bernofsky; Extension of the EPR grant; Amendment to contract with signatures
156	93/06/17; Carl Bernofsky to Susan D. Allen; Express concern over problems with grant renewal and the need for DOD funding
157	93/06/18; James J. Corrigan to Carl Bernofsky; Renewal of Research Professor appointment
158	93/06/25; Science; Advertisement for a Tulane tenure-track position in Biochemistry
159	93/08/26 & 93/10/05; Tulane University Medical Center to General Medical Faculty; Guidelines for the Assignment of Research Space; 10/5/93 Agenda of meeting discussing Guidelines	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained, unless properly authenticated at trial
160a	93/09/08; Jim D. Karam to James J. Corrigan; CB approached him informally and asked him to recommend him for tenure; Request for clarification (Prod. Reqst. #1)
160b	93/09/08; James J. Corrigan to Jim D. Karam; Handwritten reply on bottom of Karam's memo of 8/26/93 (Prod. Reqst. #1)
161	93/09/28; Carl Bernofsky to Harrison C. Spencer; Recommend two potential Directors for the Center for Bioenvironmental Research
162	93/10/00; Tulane Monitor; Article on Dept of Biochemistry funds from NSF (approx $300,000) and Tulane ($500,000)
163a	95/02/14; David A. Rice to Melanie Ehrlich, Jim D. Karam, James Corrigan, John LaRosa, & John Beal; FTFR recommends outside professional mediation as a result of Dr. Ehrlich's grievances	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained at this time
163b	94/01/28; Melanie Ehrlich to FTFR Committee; Petition to FTFR	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained at this time
163c	93/10/30; Melanie Ehrlich to FTFR Committee; Grievance by Melanie Ehrlich	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained at this time
164	93/12/01; Herbert D. Wolff, III, National Science Foundation to Tulane University; Notice of grant award ($25,000 supplement) to CB
165	93/12/06; Roy S. Weiner to Carl Bernofsky; Appointed Contributing Member of Tulane Cancer Center
166	94/00/00; Tulane University School of Medicine; Brochure showing Ph.D. Program in Biochemistry
167	94/00/00; Tulane University School of Medicine to Peterson's Guide; Department of Biochemistry listing
168a	94/00/00; Anonymous DOD Reviewer to Tulane/Xavier Bioenvironmental Research Program; Grant critique for Sanda Clejan (Prod. Reqst. #31)	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to S. Clejan and D. Hurley
168b	94/00/00; Anonymous DOD Reviewer to Tulane/Xavier Bioenvironmental Research Program; Grant critique for David L. Hurley (Prod. Reqst. #31)	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to S. Clejan and D. Hurley
168c	94/00/00; Anonymous DOD Reviewer to Tulane/Xavier Bioenvironmental Research Program; Grant critique for Carl Bernofsky (Prod. Reqst. #31)
169a	94/01/21; Irving H. LaValle to Carl Bernofsky; Appointment to the Sub-Committee on Coordinated Research Instrumentation Facility
169b	94/08/29; Irving H. LaValle to Carl Bernofsky; Appointment to the Sub-Committee on Coordinated Research Instrumentation Facility
170a	95/07/16; Melanie Ehrlich to Eamon Kelly; Harassment by Jim D. Karam	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170b	95/07/31; Melanie Ehrlich to David Rice; Background for Petition to FTFR	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170c	94/07/01; Jim D. Karam to Melanie Ehrlich; Notice of annual evaluation and assignments for coming year	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170d	96/08/15; Melanie Ehrlich to James Corrigan; Request for reconsideration of salary for 1995-96	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170e	95/07/00; Melanie Ehrlich to Self; Rebuttal of Jim Karam's evaluation	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170f	95/07/31; Melanie Ehrlich to FTFR Committee; Petition to FTFR	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170g	95/07/27; Melanie Ehrlich to Jim D. Karam; Alleges "...discrimination through salary recrimination"	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170h	94/01/28; Melanie Ehrlich to FTFR Committee; Petition to FTFR	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170i	95/00/00; Melanie Ehrlich to Self; Brief outline of continued harassment	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170j	95/03/30; Melanie Ehrlich to Self; Notes of Current Problems Mediators Could Address	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170k	95/00/00; Jim D. Karam to Melanie Ehrlich; Handwritten notes of Chairman's Annual Faculty Evaluation for 1994-95	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170l	95/06/30; Jim D. Karam to Melanie Ehrlich; Annual Evaluation of 1994-95 (Ordered per request #7 & 21; not produced; produced by Dr. Ehrlich)	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170m	95/07/31; Jim D. Karam to Melanie Ehrlich; Response to Ehrlich's rebuttal of 94-95 evaluation	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170n	95/00/00; Melanie Ehrlich to Self; Errors in Dr. Karam's evaluation of last year's work	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
170o	95/08/31; James J. Corrigan to Melanie Ehrlich; Supports Dr. Karam's decision about salary	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
171	94/02/15; Carl Bernofsky to Hideo Utsumi; Professional interaction; Collegiality	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation, may be reconsidered
172a	94/02/17; Carl Bernofsky to Self; Refused to sign for financial statements which CB routinely received	Objection as to authenticity: Overruled, subject to proper authentication at trial
172b	94/02/16; Carol Uhlich to Carl Bernofsky; Request that CB sign for receipt of account statements	Objection as to authenticity: Overruled, subject to proper authentication at trial
172c	94/02/16; Carol Uhlich to Self; Note added at bottom of memo above, dated 2/16/94, saying CB refused to sign but accepted the statements (Prod. Reqst. #1)	Objection as to authenticity: Overruled, subject to proper authentication at trial
173	94/02/17; Carol Uhlich to Jennifer Kam; Forbids further spending on DOD 2 CBR grant except for salary for Yan Tang through 3/1/94
174	94/02/17; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Transfer of CB's salary funds from DOD-2 CBR grant to cover salaries for Bandara and Tang; CB's salary rebudgeted to Department
175	94/03/10; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Deficit on DOD grant; please meet with me to discuss mutual obligations
176	94/03/21; Jim D. Karam to Terry Miller; Gives permission for CB to deposit money in an account (Leukemia Research Fund)
177a	94/03/28; Jim D. Karam to James J. Corrigan; Serious reservations about recommending CB for reappointment
177b	94/07/01; No name to Personnel Department; Unsigned Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action Form for CB
178	94/03/29; Amram Samuni to Carl Bernofsky; Requests help for improving an Israeli University curriculm for medical students
179	94/03/31; William E. M. Lands to Carl Bernofsky; Professional interaction; "I wish you success in your outstanding scientific endeavors."
180	94/03/31; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Notice of academic review and request for documents for reappointment for the 1994-95 academic year
181	94/04/15; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky &  Other Faculty; Instructions for Faculty Progress Reports
182	94/04/17; American Men and Women of Science to Carl Bernofsky; Update of listing	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time, subject to stipulation
183	94/04/18; Jim D. Karam to Susan D. Allen; Discussion of plans made with Mr. Frank Gallagher to install the EPR (Prod. Reqst. #11)
184	94/04/20; Danielle Laval-Martin to Carl Bernofsky; Appreciates receiving papers; "already knew your work and had your papers."
185	94/04/25; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Advises that Susan Allen has site for EPR and will provide time table for installation
186	94/04/26; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Ultimatum on documents for academic review
187	94/04/27; Carl Bernofsky to DOD; Submitted DOD Grant to Tulane
188	94/04/27; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Response to Karam's ultimatum to supply documents
189a	94/05/00; Anonymous DOD Reviewer # 1 to Tulane/Xavier DOD Bioenvironmental Research Program; Critique for CB's DOD proposal
189b	94/05/00; Anonymous DOD Reviewer #2 to Tulane/Xavier DOD Bioenvironmental Research Program; Critique for CB's DOD proposal
190	94/05/02; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam, Yu-Teh Li, Richard H. Steele, & Rune L. Stjernholm; Submit packet of documents for academic review
191	94/05/03; Jim D. Karam to Ad hoc Faculty Review Committee: Yu-Teh Li, Richard Steele, & Rune Stjernholm; Charge given to review accomplishments and service activities of CB for three-year period
192	94/05/03; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Drs. Bandara and Tang will not be reappointed when grants run out
193	94/05/04; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Request for % effort information for academic review
194	94/05/05; Carl Bernofsky to Carol Uhlich; Gross errors in financial memo dated 4/27/94 but received today
195	94/05/05; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Request additional time to consider future financing of Drs. Bandara and Tang
196	94/05/05; J. Larry Crain to Carl Bernofsky; Extension of the EPR grant
197	94/05/05; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam, Yu-Teh Li, Richard H. Steele, & Rune L. Stjernholm; False rumor being spread about CB by Review Committee Member
198	94/05/07; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Propose to keep Drs. Bandara and Tang on minimal salary from private sources pending renewal of grant support
199	94/05/09; James N. McDougal to Carl Bernofsky; Invitation to visit Armstrong Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB
200	94/05/10; Carl Bernofsky to Air Force Office of Scientific Research; AFOSR Proposal
201a	94/05/13; J. Carl Bourgeious to Carl Bernofsky; Assign account number for new "Leukemia Research Fund"; Authorized signature card dated 5/18/94 attached
201b	94/05/18; Carl Bernofsky to Tulane University; Signature card for Leukemia Research Fund
202	94/05/16; Yu-Teh Li, Richard H. Steele, & Rune L. Stjernholm to Jim D. Karam; Committee evaluation of CB's general Departmental performance
203	94/05/19; Carol Uhlich to Carl Bernofsky; St---d j--k incident; Request apology (Prod. Reqst. #1)
204	94/05/19; Carol Uhlich to Self; Note added regarding 50 transparancies added to bottom of note directly above (Prod. Reqst. #1)
205	94/05/19; Carol Uhlich to Carl Bernofsky; Creation of urgency over appointments for Drs. Bandara and Tang; Accusation of CB's unavailability
206	94/05/19; Carol Uhlich to Self; Computer draft notes of letter to CB of 5/19/94 directly below (Prod. Reqst. #1)
207	94/05/19; Carol Uhlich to Carl Bernofsky; Note about Departmental policy requiring requests be placed on green sheets; This is attached to CB's note of 5/20/94 (Prod. Reqst. #1)
208a	94/05/20; Carl Bernofsky to Carol Uhlich; Response to memo of 5/19/94; Cite availability
208b	94/05/20; Carl Bernofsky to Carol Uhlich; St---d j--k incident; Provide apology and give criticism
209	94/05/24; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Karam's evaluation of CB's performance and list of conditions for reappointment
210a	94/05/24; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Unable to reappoint Drs. Bandara and Tang
210b	94/09/20; B. M. R. Bandara to Carl Bernofsky; Letter of resignation
211	94/05/24; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Will not reappoint Drs. Bandara and Tang at reduced salaries
212	94/05/25; Jim D. Karam to Personnel Department; Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action; Reappointment as Research Professor
213a	94/06/20; James J. Corrigan to Carl Bernofsky; Approval of appointment for academic year (to 7/1/95)	Objection as to authenticity: Moot, plaintiff will provide a clean copy at trial
213b	94/05/25; Jim D. Karam to Tulane Personnel Department; Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action; Reappointment for 1994-95 fiscal year	Objection as to authenticity: Moot, plaintiff will provide a clean copy at trial
214	94/06/03; Neal A. Vanselow to Carl Bernofsky; Acknowledgment of $3,000 gift for "Leukemia Research Fund"
215	94/06/11; Carl Bernofsky to Sheryl A. Gros; Request reimbursement for fund raising activities (travel to Armstrong Laboratories, Wright-Patterson AFB)
216	94/06/11; Carl Bernofsky to Frank C. Currie; Request leave of absence for Dr. Tang in place of termination
217	94/06/14; Carl Bernofsky to James N. McDougal; Informed him of unexpected loss of grant
218	94/06/16; Sheryl A. Gros to Carl Bernofsky; Will not fund travel expenses to Wright-Patterson AFB
219	94/06/20; James J. Corrigan to Carl Bernofsky; Approval of appointment as Research Professor for 1994-1995 academic year
220	94/06/23; Carl Bernofsky to Charles F. Ide; Concern over irregularities in handling CB's DOD grant application
221	94/06/24; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Will "study" the events regarding the flood-damaged HPLC equipment
222	94/06/27; Susan D. Allen to Carl Bernofsky; EPR will be managed by the CIF (Tom Lyttle)
223	94/07/12; Janet M. Hughes to Carl Bernofsky; Will not fund grant proposal to NIEHS
224	94/07/15; Carl Bernofsky to Carol Uhlich; Suggestions for covering deficits and recurring research expenses
225	94/07/19; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Warn against making charges against exhausted NSF grant; Promise to help maintain cell lines when funds are gone
226	94/07/20; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Will not approve additional items for the EPR without additional specific authorization
227a	94/07/20; Carol Uhlich to Dan Sintich; CB's accounts nearing or presently in deficit
227b	95/04/05; Carl Bernofsky to Carol Uhlich; Letter mistakenly dated 3/5/95; returned Final Expenditures Report for further clarification of $1,647.53 in matching funds; objected to $547 unexpended funds being returned
227c	95/04/03; Carol Uhlich to Carl Bernofsky; Note requesting CB to review and sign Expenditure Report for LEQSF grant and Pay To; Shows $2,352 in unexpended matching funds and $547 in LEQSF grant funds
228a	94/07/28; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky & Other Faculty; Notification of Faculty Development Review Process
228b	94/07/13; James J. Corrigan to Executive Faculty; Faculty Development Review; Research track reviewed only for promotion
228c	94/07/20; James J. Corrigan to Executive Faculty; Faculty Development Review; Research track reviewed only for promotion
229	94/07/28; Carol Uhlich to Self; Computer note Re: placement of order for microwave frequency counter by Louis in purchasing and interactions with CB; Copy of note is found with computer note of 5/19/94 (Prod. Reqst. #1)
230a	94/07/26; Yu-Teh Li & Rune L. Stjernholm to Carl Bernofsky; Request that CB teach 10 lectures
230b	94/07/28; Carl Bernofsky to Yu-Teh Li &  Rune L. Stjernholm; Link acceptance of teaching assignment to consideration for official tenure
231	94/07/28; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; CB's response to Karam's evaluation of 5/24/94
232	94/07/29; Carl Bernofsky to Carol Carlton; Discussion of billing for oligonucleotide synthesis
233	94/07/31; Carl Bernofsky to Samuel J. Landry; Submit title for seminar
234a	94/08/01; Carl Bernofsky to J. Larry Crain; Request approval for purchase of EPR accessories (including heat exchanger upgrade)
234b	94/08/11; J. Larry Crain to Carl Bernofsky; Approved purchase of EPR accessories (including heat exchanger upgrade)
234c	94/09/07; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Discuss continued refusal to approve EPR requisitions
234d	94/09/09; Thomas Lyttle to Ron Luckett; Request approval for purchase of EPR heat exchanger upgrade
234e	94/09/16; J. Larry Crain to Thomas Lyttle; Approved purchase of heat exchanger upgrade for EPR
234f	94/09/17; Carl Bernofsky to James J. Corrigan; Response to Karam's refusal to approve CB's EPR requisitions, while approving Tom Lyttle's requisition
235	94/08/01; Carl Bernofsky to Self; Sam Landry discovered no dates were available for CB; Student will fill seminar slot instead
236a	94/08/08; Jim D. Karam to James J. Corrigan; Two e-mails showing draft of a letter intended for CB Re: appointment and compensation (Prod. Reqst. #11)
236b	94/08/08; James J. Corrigan to Jim Karam; Two e-mails indicating approval of Karam's e-mails Re: CB (Prod. Reqst. #11)
236c	94/08/10; Jim Karam to James Corrigan; E-mail Re: CB and due process (Prod. Reqst. #11)
237	94/08/09; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Notice of termination as of 12/31/94
238	94/08/10; Jim D. Karam to James J. Corrigan; E-mail: Dr. Bernofsky must accept "the conditions I laid down for him" (Prod. Reqst. #1)
239	94/08/10; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Discuss lack of due process in termination; Cite Dean's appointment to 7/1/95; Willing to teach
240	94/08/11; Jim D. Karam to Faculty, Department of Biochemistry; Committee appointments for FY 94-95
241	94/08/16; Jim D. Karam & James J. Corrigan to Carl Bernofsky; Changed notice of termination to 2/28/95; Reiterated non-eligibility for tenure
242a	94/08/31; Prim B. Smith, Jr. to Jim D. Karam; Will pray for the Department of Biochemistry on 9/14/94; Prayer schedule for Medical School Departments	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained, Fed. R. Evid. 403
242b	95/00/00; Tulane University Directory; Tulane Employees Calendar for 1995-1996 School Year: Yom Kipper is a School holiday at Uptown Campus, but not at School of Medicine	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained, Fed. R. Evid. 403
243	94/09/12; Jill J. Barbay to Carl Bernofsky; Request for updated CV for Departmental LEQSF grant
244	94/09/20; Carl Bernofsky to Charles Ide; Request response to CB's memo of 6/23/94 Re: objections to review of DOD grant
245	94/09/20; Jim D. Karam to James J. Corrigan; "[CB's] airing of misinformation to the LEQSF is particularly objectionable and demonstrates the ill will he bears toward Tulane"
246	94/09/20; Jim D. Karam to James J. Corrigan; Dr. Bandara terminated on 9/28/94
247	94/09/21; Carl Bernofsky to James J. Corrigan; Request for help in repairing flood-damaged HPLC equipment
248	94/09/21; James J. Corrigan to Carl Bernofsky; Refused to become involved with flood-damaged HPLC equiment
249	94/09/21; Gilbert J. Estrada to Faculty and Researchers; Request for data (shows that others have e-mail)
250	94/09/27; James J. Corrigan to Carl Bernofsky; Support for Karam's decision to have Tom Lyttle order heat exchanger upgrade and to transfer control of the EPR to Tom Lyttle
251	94/10/08; Carl Bernofsky to Susan D. Allen; Discussion of use of funds remaining in LEQSF grant
252	94/10/08; Carl Bernofsky to Susan D. Allen; Discussion of previous day's conversation on DOD grant and her explanation of why it was not funded
253	94/10/13; Carl Bernofsky to J. Larry Crain; Request permission to purchase a loop gap resonator probe for the EPR
254	94/10/17; Susan D. Allen to Carl Bernofsky; Protest over CB's allegation of improper handling of his DOD grant application
255	94/10/17; Carl Bernofsky to Carol Carlton; Return unused oligonucleotides with documentation of impurities
256	94/10/23; Carl Bernofsky to Verna Lee; Request list of investigators for "clustering opportunities" for DOE/EM proposals
257	94/10/25; J. Larry Crain to Carl Bernofsky; Approved purchase of loop gap resonator probe for EPR
258	94/10/28; Murali C. Krishna to Carl Bernofsky; Enjoyed CB's talk "immensely" at Oklahoma	Objection as to authenticity: Overruled, subject to proper authentication at trial
259	94/11/02; Shirley Bernofsky to Self; Memo distributed to staff and faculty and not placed in CB's mailbox	Objection as to authenticity: Overruled, subject to proper authentication at trial
260	94/11/06; Carl Bernofsky to Keith P. Madden; Collegiality and collaboration
261	94/11/08; Carl Bernofsky to Self; Learned from David Coy that he has a five-year renewable contract	Objection to which the Court has not ruled upon: Handwritten note dated November 8, 1994 (source unknown)
262	94/11/18; Carl Bernofsky to Jeffrey W. Fisher; Collegiality and help for his project; reprint attached
263a	94/11/21; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Reprimand for not attending faculty meeting that featured a taped OSHA program on blood-borne disease prevention (CB had given prior notice of inability to attend)
263b	94/12/29; Carol Uhlich to Self; Note Re: confirmed CB's attendance at OSHA session with Charlee Jones; Located at bottom of 11/21/94 memo of Carol Uhlich
264	94/11/25; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Promise to attend OSHA presentation on blood-borne disease prevention
265	94/11/25; Carl Bernofsky to AFOSR; Addendum to Air Force Proposal
266	94/11/30; Tulane University to Carl Bernofsky; NSF Budget Sheets; shows grant ending 7/31/94
267	94/12/08; John C. LaRosa to Tulane Faculty; Will undertake a faculty research database (BEST-North diskette)
268	94/12/10; Carl Bernofsky to Charles F. Ide; Discussion of DOD "deficit"
269	94/12/10; Carl Bernofsky to Owen P. Mills; Discussion of CIF charges for repair of flood-damaged computer
270	94/12/13; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Reprimand for billing postage for grant applications to Department
271	94/06/22 & 94/11/25; Carl Bernofsky to National Science Foundation & Air Force; Federal Express airbills for NSF and Air Force grants
272	94/12/14; Carl Bernofsky to Medical Specialties; Send personal check to cover liquid nitrogen for January
273	94/12/15; Jeanna Johnston to Carl Bernofsky & Other Faculty; Request for chemical inventory
274	94/12/16; Carl Bernofsky to Jeanna Johnston; Request secretarial help to prepare chemical inventory
275	94/12/16; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Response to Karam's refusal to approve purchase of liquid nitrogen with Leukemia grant funds
276a	94/12/16; Susan D. Allen & John E. Salvaggio to Tulane Faculty; Plan to develop a faculty research database using the BEST-North America database
276b	95/01/24; Carl Bernofsky to Carol Uhlich; BEST-North America database diskette; Response Re: withholding mail, opening letter, and inputting data on diskette without authorization
276c	95/01/25; Carol Uhlich to Carl Bernofsky; Claimed that she received diskette 1/23/95
276d	95/01/24; Carol Uhlich to Carl Bernofsky; Request completion of the BEST-North America database diskette
276e	95/01/25; Carl Bernofsky to Self; Lisa DiCosola verified that Dr. Allen's memo of 12/16/94 was sent out "a very long time ago;" Also, no firm deadline required on return of diskette
276f	95/01/28; Carl Bernofsky to Carol Uhlich; Response to her input and handling of database diskette; Photocopy of diskette; Attachment has instruction for use of diskette
276g	95/01/28; Carl Bernofsky to Carol Uhlich; has 1/30/95 Note from Karam written across top (and envelope)
277	94/12/20; Jim D. Karam & James J. Corrigan to Carl Bernofsky; Reminder of termination as of 2/28/95; Refusal to approve liquid nitrogen; "First, I need to know if grant support is available to continue your appointment."
278	94/12/20; Carol Uhlich to Self; Handwritten notes regarding conversation with CB regarding approval of requisitions (Prod. Reqst. #1)
279	94/12/27; Carl Bernofsky to N. Kevin Krane; Submit "Four Grievances Against Jim D. Karam" for consideration by Grievance Committee of General Medical Faculty
280	94/12/28; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Refused secretarial assistance for preparing chemical inventory
281	95/00/00; Jim D. Karam to Tulane University; Affidavit of Dr. Jim D. Karam
282	95/01/04; N. Kevin Krane to Jim D. Karam; Informed him of four grievances filed against him by CB
283	95/01/09; Carl Bernofsky to N. Kevin Krane; Further clarification of Grievances submitted to the Committee; Additional documentation attached
284	95/01/09; Carl Bernofsky to Keith P. Madden; Collegiality and collaboration
285	95/01/11; Marian R. Walters to Carl Bernofsky & Jim D. Karam; Notice of initial Grievance hearing, procedures to be followed, and copy of By-laws
286a	95/01/12; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; "This is to caution you" to submit a grant update
286b	95/01/12; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Submitted grant update information
286c	95/01/12; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Submit grant update information; stamped: received 1/13/95, but without reverse side information
287	95/01/16; Carl Bernofsky to Marian R. Walters; List of potential witnesses for Grievances
288	95/01/16; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Inform Karam of information he will need to provide at the Grievance hearing
289	95/01/17; Jim D. Karam to Grievance Committee; Response to grievances of CB with three appendices
290	95/01/17; Robert A. Hammer to Jules B. Puschett; ACAR-approved work being done with animals. No identification of blood and animal hair recovered; Written two years after event
291	95/01/17; Jim D. Karam to Grievance Committee; Accounting statement of 1/6/95 showing the EPR machine ordered on 3/1/93; Gives Purchase Order No.
292	95/01/18; Jules B. Puschett to Jim D. Karam; Proposes that Biochemistry, Management Services, and Department of Medicine share in cost of flood damage
293	95/01/18; Marian R. Walters to Carl Bernofsky & Jim D. Karam; Notification of date of Grievance hearing
294	95/01/19; Marian R. Walters to Carl Bernofsky; Her response to Bernofsky's memo of 1/16/95
295	95/01/20; Carl Bernofsky to Marian R. Walters; Lists single witness to be called at the Grievance Hearing and states interest in obtaining a copy of the tape which will be made
296	95/01/24; Carl Bernofsky to Grievance Committee; Separate pages of Updated Attachments to Grievance 2: Flood Damage to HPLC Equipment
297	95/01/25; Carl Bernofsky to Jim D. Karam; Found a foreign pipette tip on tissue culture floor; Karam wrote a note back at top saying he was contacting Security; Note at bottom from Carol Uhlich
298	95/01/25; Carol Uhlich to Carl Bernofsky; Refutes timing of Best diskette incident; Handwritten note of 2/8/95 states the diskette was never returned to her
299	95/01/25; Rate Sub Committee of the Coordinated Instrumentation Facility; Minutes of meeting in which rates to be charged for use of EPR and other equipment were determined; CB, a voting member, was not invited; Agenda and two rate tables attached
300	95/01/26; Sgt. Ratliff to Tulane Medical School; Tulane University Medical Center Police Department Incident Report of entrance into Room 6107 Re: foreign pipette tip
301a	95/02/13; William Cohen to Jim D. Karam; Letter regarding Dr. Cohen's retirement package (Prod. Reqst. #27)	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained, Fed. R. Evid. 403
301b	95/02/14; William Cohen to Jim D. Karam; Asks for full medical coverage for wife until she reaches 65 (Prod. Reqst. #27)	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained, Fed. R. Evid. 403
301c	95/02/24; William Cohen to Jim D. Karam; Letter Re: "Suggested Early Retirement Package" (Prod. Reqst. #27)	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained, Fed. R. Evid. 403
301d	95/01/26; Jim D. Karam to Larry A. Baudoin & Frank C. Currie; Early retirement for William Cohen (Prod. Reqst. #27)	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained, Fed. R. Evid. 403
301e	95/02/20; Frank C. Currie to Jim D. Karam; Retirement benefits of William Cohen; Attachment showing faculty retirement benefits (Prod. Reqst. #27)	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained, Fed. R. Evid. 403
302	95/01/31; Marian R. Walters to James J. Corrigan; Outcome of Grievance Hearing
303a	95/01/31; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Appointment terminated as of 2/28/95; Karam intends to move equipment and supplies
303b	95/06/12; Jim D. Karam to James J. Corrigan; Notification that CB has been terminated effective 4/21/95 and paid through March 31, 1995; Payroll Action Form dated 7/10/95 attached
303c	95/07/10; Department of Biochemistry to Personnel Department; Payroll Action Form; termination date, 4/21/95
304	95/01/31; Jim D. Karam to John LaRosa; Handwritten note: "FYI the Dean has all the details;" Call if you need more information
305	95/02/01; Walter J. Kozumbo to Carl Bernofsky; Notification of 2-year grant award from Air Force
306	95/02/04; Carl Bernofsky to Edward G. Janzen; Collegiality and collaboration	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled, subject to stipulation
307	95/02/06; Carl Bernofsky to TMC Public Relations Office; Notice of grant award from Air Force
308	95/02/06; Carl Bernofsky to TMC Public Relations Office; News Release; Description of new grant
309	95/02/06; Carl Bernofsky to Sheryl A. Gros; Received copy of grant award notice from Air Force
310	95/02/10; Carl Bernofsky to Louisiana Commission on Human Rights; Charge of Discrimination Form
311a	95/02/15; Lynne Ebersole to John Beal; Account of her conversation with CB regarding the new Air Force grant
311b	95/02/13; Carl Bernofsky to Self; Notes of call from Lynne Ebersole, who received call from Air Force; Bandara must be replaced by "To be named"
312	Undated; No name to No name; Handwritten notes of recent grant history for CB
313	95/02/15; Sheryl Gros to Jim D. Karam; Fax - Attached is the information you requested on CB...; Handwritten notes of recent grant history for CB (Prod. Reqst. #1)
314	95/02/20; Carl Bernofsky to Lynne Ebersole; Adjustments to Air Force budget seem trivial; Will provide equivalent replacements for Drs. Bandara and Tang
315	95/02/27; Jim D. Karam to Carl Bernofsky; Date of Termination of Appointment dependent on settlement conference
316a	95/03/31; Lynne Ebersole to Carl Bernofsky; Note requesting approval of Air Force award notice with a copy of "grant terms and conditions"; Front pages of Air Force grant
316b	95/03/22; Fran Washington, Air Force to Lynne Ebersole; Request for acceptance of Air Force grant; note attached to copy requesting CB's signature; Official grant award forms attached
317	95/03/22; Julien M. Christensen to Carl Bernofsky; Invitation to give a presentation at an Air Force environmental toxicology program review in Dayton, Ohio in June, 1995
318	95/03/28; Jim D. Karam to James M. Nolan; Offer a position as tenure-track Assistant Professor (Prod. Reqst. #7 & 21)	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained at this time
319	95/04/04; Jim D. Karam to John Beal; Funding and space comparisons of CB and other Biochemistry faculty members; Three tables attached (Prod. Reqst. #42)
320	95/06/13; Jim D. Karam to Department of Biochemistry Faculty; List of equipment that James Nolan needs for his research	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained
321	95/06/14; Roger Phipps to G. Phillip Shuler, III, Julie D. Livaudais, & John Beal; Request for access to laboratories and office	Plaintiff's objections to defendant's exhibit: Overruled, relevant to conversion claim
322	95/06/15; Roger Phipps to John Beal; Proposal to facilitate settlement negotiations and transfer of research program	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained Re: terms of settlement proposal, overruled as to portions relevant to conversion issue, exhibit needs to be appropriately excised by counsel prior to trial
323	95/06/16; Roger Phipps to G. Phillip Shuler, III, Julie D. Livaudais, & John Beal; Discussion of equipment belonging to CB; Lack of admittance to laboratories; health problems	Plaintiff's objections to defendant's exhibit: Overruled, relevant to conversion claim
324	95/06/20; James J. Corrigan to Samuel J. Landry; Renewal of appointment as Assistant Professor (Prod. Reqst. #7 & 21)	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained
325	95/06/22; Tulane Medical School to Department of Biochemistry; Inventory report of equipment in CB's laboratories
326a	95/07/11; Andrew P. Thomas to Carl Bernofsky; Fax sent to Biochemistry Department requesting that CB review a paper for the Journal of Biological Chemistry
326b	95/07/15; Shirley Bernofsky to Self; Note that a Fax with a deadline was mailed to CB's home by Carol Uhlich via U.S. Postal Service
327	95/08/22; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to Carl Bernofsky; Notice of Right to Sue
328a	95/09/22; Willem H. Koppenol to Evanthea Phipps; Letter of support for CB	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
328b	95/11/27; Al Tappel to John C. LaRosa; Letter of support for CB	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
328c	95/12/19; Garry Buettner to William A. Toscano; Letter of support for CB	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
329	95/10/11; Milton W. Seiler to To Whom It May Concern; Medical oncologist's report of CB's medical condition	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained as to the documents themselves, subject to the Court's Minute Entry Re: Testimony of Melanie Ehrlich
330	95/11/13; Vanessa L. Johnson-Evans to Carl Bernofsky; Request that CB review proposal for the American Chemical Society Books Department
331	95/11/14; Harrison C. Spencer to Carl Bernofsky; Appointment as Adjunct Professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences
332	95/12/11; Walter Kozumbo to Lynne Ebersole; E-mail stating reasons for cancellation of Air Force grant
333	95/12/13; Sheryl Gros to Carmen Calvert, Air Force Office of Scientific Research; Returning the payment Tulane received in support of CB's Air Force Grant
334	95/12/21; Lynne Ebersole to Carmen Calvert; Return of Air Force grant award; Amendment No. 1 attached
335	96/00/00; Tulane Medical School to Department of Biochemistry; Grant Log for Department of Biochemistry for years 1988-1995 (Prod. Reqst. #12 & 41)
336	96/00/00; Shirley Bernofsky to Carl Bernofsky; List of Large Expenditures (1982-1991) for Tulane Lab and Office, with documentation	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained, too remote in time, unless current ownership of items in dispute Re: state law claim of conversion
337	96/00/00; J. Stuart Wood to Carl Bernofsky; Table: CB's Grant Proceeds (1975-1995)	Objection as to authenticity: Overruled, subject to proper authentication at trial
338	96/00/00; E. Hamori, R. Stjernholm, & Yu-Teh Li to Jim D. Karam; Notes regarding their committee evaluation of Samuel Landry (Prod. Reqst. #7 & 21)	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained
339	96/00/00; Carl Bernofsky to Self; Table: Comparison of Research Professors (CB and Tou; 1980-1988)	Objection as to authenticity: Overruled, subject to proper authentication at trial
340	96/00/00; Carl Bernofsky to Self; Chart: Summary of Grants CB brought to Tulane for 1975-95	Objection as to authenticity: Overruled, subject to proper authentication at trial
341	96/00/00; Jim D. Karam to Chaffe, McCall..; Listing of committee participation: Bernofsky, Ehrlich, and Cohen (Prod. Reqst. #17)
342	96/00/00; Shirley Bernofsky to Carl Bernofsky; List: Major Job Related Expenditures (1975-1996) from Personal Funds of the Bernofsky/Goodman Family, with documentation	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained, too remote in time, unless current ownership of items in dispute Re: state law claim of conversion
343	96/00/00; Shirley Bernofsky to Carl Bernofsky; List: Expenditures (1975-1976) for Lab Equipment, Office Furniture, and Lab Remodeling at Tulane with personal funds; with documentation	Objection as to relevancy: Sustained, too remote in time, unless current ownership of items in dispute Re: state law claim of conversion
344	96/00/00; Tulane Medical School; Charity Hospital Billing Reports: Department of Biochemistry employees (FY 1988-1995) (Prod. Reqst. #12, 13, 41, & 42)
345	96/01/02; Jim D. Karam to James J. Corrigan; Samuel Landry Three-Year Review (Prod. Reqst. #7 & 21)	Objection as to relevancy: Overruled at this time
346	96/01/03; Fran Washington to Lynne Ebersole; Fully-signed grant amendment returned with two copies of Air Force grant
347	96/01/05; Carl Bernofsky to J. Patrick Jordan; Status report
348	96/04/29; Department of Biochemistry; Biochemistry Faculty Chart: Department of Biochemistry Roster for 1989-1997 with dates of hire and termination/retirement (Prod. Reqst. #12, 13, 41, & 42)
349	96/05/14; Terry L. Miller to Tulane School of Medicine; Affidavit listing salaries for CB and Su-Chen Li
350	96/06/10; Jim D. Karam to Biochemistry Faculty; Memo informing Department of availabilty of equipment and supplies for distribution from Rooms 6011 and 6015
351	Jen-sie Tou; Curriculum vitae (1987) (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
352a	76/04/19; Rune L. Stjernholm to E. P. Bollier; Nomination of Dr. Tou to Graduate Faculty (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
352b	76/04/20; E. P. Bollier to Rune L. Stjernholm; Declined without prejudice Dr. Tou's nomination to Graduate Faculty (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
353	76/06/30; Rune L. Stjernholm to Personnel Department; Recommendation of salary increase for Dr. Tou; Routing sheet for Faculty Recommendation Form (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
354a	77/11/01; Rune L. Stjernholm to James T. Hamlin; Unfavorable recommendation for promotion of Dr. Tou to Associate Professor (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
354b	79/02/21; Rune L. Stjernholm, Richard H. Steele, & William Cohen to James T. Hamlin; Recommedation for regular tenured appointment of Dr. Tou (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
354c	79/06/25; A[drianne] E[ngelhardt] to Self; Note written at bottom of letter written by Drs. Stjernholm, Steele, and Cohen to Dr. Hamlin dated February 21, 1979 stating that Dr. Tou's regular appointment on a three-year track was approved (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
354d	79/02/21; Rune L. Stjernholm to James T. Hamlin; Appendix A - Promotion Form for Jen-sie Tou; Attached to Stjernholm letter of February 21, 1979 (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
355	78/03/28; James T. Hamlin to Rune L. Stjernholm; Promotion of Dr. Tou to Associate Professor was not approved (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
356	79/02/07; John E. Stouffer to Rune L. Stjernholm; Recommendation for Dr. Tou (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
357	79/02/08; Clyde G. Huggins to Rune L. Stjernholm; Recommendation for Dr. Tou (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
358	79/02/12O; Neil Miller to Rune L. Stjernholm; Recommendation for Dr. Tou (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
359	79/02/14; William H. Pearlman to Rune L. Stjernholm; Recommendation for Dr. Tou (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
360	79/06/26; Executive Faculty Meeting; Minutes; Su-Chen Li: Action deferred on request to change to Regular appointment with tenure; Jen-sie Tou: Action deferred on request to change to Regular appointment with tenure; Committee felt Research titles best for both (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
361	80/05/20; Rune L. Stjernholm to James T. Hamlin; Recommendation for promotion of Dr. Tou from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor; Appendix A (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
362a	80/06/19; James T. Hamlin to Jen-sie Tou; Promotion of Dr. Tou to Research Associate Professor (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
362b	80/05/26; Rune L. Stjernholm to Personnel Department; Recommendation of Dr. Tou to Research Associate Professor (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
363	80/06/09; Personnel & Honors Committee; Minutes of Meeting in which Dr. Stjernholm recommends Dr. Tou for tenure (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
364	80/06/23; Personnel & Honors Committee; Minutes; Dr. Tou promoted to Research Associate Professor (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)	Objection as to authenticity: Sustained
365	80/06/24; Executive Faculty Meeting; Minutes; Recommendation of tenure for Dr. Tou denied; Research status should be reconsidered by Personnel & Honors Committee; page 2: Committee approved promotion to Associate Professor (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
366	80/06/25; Personnel & Honors Committee; Minutes; Dr. Tou's appointment upheld as Research position (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
367	80/06/26; Executive Faculty Meeting; Minutes; Dr. Tou given Research status (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
368	80/07/01; A[drianne Engelhardt] to Self and Dr. E[vans]; Typed notes indicating Dr. Goodman said that the time period of probation (18 years) is what counts, not teaching load (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
369	81/03/11; Rune L. Stjernholm to Graduate Faculty; Recommending Dr. Tou to membership in Graduate Faculty (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
370	81/03/11; Rune L. Stjernholm to James T. Hamlin; Nominating Dr. Tou to the Graduate Faculty (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
371	81/03/11; James T. Hamlin to Frank T. Birtel; Recommendation of Dr. Tou to Graduate Faculty (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
372	87/02/06; Blackwell Evans, Mary Baker, & Others to Mary Baker & Blackwell Evans; Notes back and forth regarding Dr. Tou (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)	Objection to which the Court has not ruled upon: Handwritten notes concerning Dr. Tou (source unknown)
373a	88/04/12; Rune L. Stjernholm to James T. Hamlin; Committee on Promotions in the Department of Biochemistry recommended Dr. Tou be converted from Research Associate Professor to Regular Appointment (Tenured Status) (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
373b	89/01/31; James T. Hamlin to John J. Walsh; Recommends that Dr. Tou be given automatic tenure because of the number of years she has served on the faculty (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
374	88/04/27; Rune L. Stjernholm to Personnel Department; Recommending that Dr. Tou be returned to regular tenured status because her teaching load has increased (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
375	88/12/02; Rune L. Stjernholm to James T. Hamlin; Chart: Biochemistry Didactic Lectures; Attached to letter of support for Tou, 12/2/88 (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
376	88/12/02; Rune L. Stjernholm to James T. Hamlin; Status report for Dr. Tou; Justification of high salary (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
377	89/02/10; John J. Walsh to James T. Hamlin; Dr. Tou warrants immediate appointment to regular status with tenure (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
378	89/02/22; John J. Walsh to Blackwell B. Evans; Dr. Evans should submit Dr. Tou to the Personnel & Honors Committee for tenure consideration (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
379	89/03/08; Floyd R. Domer to Eamon M. Kelly; Questions whether Dr. Tou should be given tenure (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
380	89/03/08; Blackwell B. Evans to John J. Walsh; Transmittal of recommendation to award tenure to Dr. Tou from Personnel & Honors Committee and Executive Faculty (89/03/07) (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
381	89/03/16; John J. Walsh to Eamon M. Kelly; Strong recommendation for tenure award for Dr. Tou (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
382	89/03/30; Eamon M. Kelly to John J. Walsh; Concur in recommendation for tenure of Dr. Tou (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
383	89/05/24; Vincent A. Fulginiti to Jen-sie Tou; Tenured appointment for Dr. Tou made retroactive to July 1, 1988 (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
384a	94/08/15; James J. Corrigan to Jim D. Karam; Notification that the Recommendation for Faculty Personnel Action forms changing the salaries of Baricos, Hamori, and Tou have been officially signed by everyone (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
384b	94/08/10; Jim D. Karam to Personnel Department; Recommendation for salary increase for Dr. Tou (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
384c	94/07/28; Department of Biochemistry to Personnel Department; Dr. Tou's Payroll Action Form (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)
384d	95/07/21 and preceding; Tulane Medical School; Dr. Tou's appointment letters (with correspondence)/Payroll Action Forms (Prod. Reqst. #3 & 4)

 
 

11. List of Deposition Testimony

A. Plaintiff may use perpetuation deposition testimony, and deposition testimony for purposes of impeachment at trial.

B. At present, Tulane does not intend to use deposition testimony except for purposes of impeachment at trial.
 

12. Charts, Graphs, and Models

A. Plaintiff may use charts and enlarge certain trial exhibits for demonstrative purposes. Any such objects will be submitted to opposing counsel at least three days before trial.

1. Photograph of EPR.

2. Photograph of Overhead Drain Pipe.

3. Dr. Wood's graphs and charts.

4. Plaintiff may use transparencies of certain Trial Exhibits.

B. Tulane may use charts and enlarge certain trial exhibits for demonstrative purposes. Any such objects will be submitted to opposing counsel at least three days before trial.
 

13. List of Witnesses

Plaintiff's List of Witnesses:

I. The individuals listed below will be called by Dr. Bernofsky to testify as factual witnesses at the trial of this matter.

1. John C. LaRosa, M.D., Chancellor, Tulane Medical Center. Will testify about discrimination concerning senior Jewish faculty members.

2. Rune L. Stjernholm, Ph.D., Professor and former Chairman Department of Biochemistry, Tulane School of Medicine. Interactions with Dr. Bernofsky while he was Chairman, the review committee's work, the functioning of the Department, Dr. Bernofsky's equipment and supplies.

3. Su-Chen Li, Ph.D., Research Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Tulane School of Medicine. Her duties as a Research Professor.

4. Yu-Teh Li, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Tulane School of Medicine. The review committee's work, the functioning of the Department.

5. Jen-sie Tou, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Tulane School of Medicine. Her career at Tulane as a Research Professor. Her tenure process.

6. Melanie Ehrlich, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Tulane School of Medicine. Harassment against her by the Department and the School.

7. J. Patrick Jordan, Ph.D., Director, Southern Regional Research Center, New Orleans, LA 70179. Dr. Bernofsky's efforts to mitigate his damages.

8. Samuel J. Landry, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Tulane U. School of Medicine. Age, qualifications, departmental support, area of scientific inquiry.

9. John J. Walsh, M.D., former Chancellor, Tulane Medical Center. Tenure policy.

10. Richard H. Steele, Ph.D., Professor - Retired, Department of Biochemistry, Tulane School of Medicine. The Review Committee's work, the functioning of the Department.

11. Eamon M. Kelly, Ph.D., President, Tulane University. Will testify about discrimination concerning senior Jewish faculty members.

12. Carl Bernofsky, Ph.D., 6478 General Diaz Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. Will testify about discrimination concerning senior Jewish faculty members, grants, salary, his equipment and supplies, cell cultures, chemical samples, promise of tenure, contract of employment, environmental retaliation, harassment, interference with professional relationships, harm to professional reputation, and damages.

13. Sheryl A. Gros, Director, Grants and Contracts, Tulane U. School of Medicine. Will testify about grant support of faculty members in the Biochemistry Department.

14. Yan Tang, M.D., Medical Research Specialist, Department of Pharmacology, Tulane School of Medicine. Will testify about her work for Dr. Bernofsky and the circumstances under which she went to work in the Department of Pharmacology.

15. Floyd Domer, Ph.D., Department of Pharmacology, Tulane School of Medicine. Will testify concerning Dr. Jen-sie Tou's tenure.

16. Mildred Moore, Serials Librarian, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA. Serials Librarian. Criteria by which journals are selected for inclusion within university library.
 

II. The individuals listed below may be called by Dr. Bernofsky to testify as expert witnesses at the trial of this matter:

1) Willem H. Koppenol, Ph.D., Professor of Bioinorganic Chemistry and Chairman, Institute of Inorganic Chemistry, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Switzerland. Review of Dr. Bernofsky's work, quality of his publications, significance of work, productivity as scientist and reputation in scientific community, correlation between publishing in scholarly journals and generating research funds, evaluation of research professor.

2) J. Stuart Wood, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics & Finance, College of Business, Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana. Will testify about the economic loss of Dr. Bernofsky, his grant receipt trend and salary trend, economic effect of transference of funds from Dr. Bernofsky to his support staff, that grant support indicates Dr. Bernofsky was a prolific and valued researcher and contributed to revenues of Tulane, the value of Dr. Bernofsky's grants as principal investigator, and participation in grants as co-investigator, and comparative records of other Tulane biochemists to assess Dr. Bernofsky's relative contribution to the Medical School.

3) Gary R. Buettner, Ph.D., Director, Free Radical Research Institute and ESR Facility, University of Iowa, College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA. Active researcher and teacher in field of free radical biology; familiar with plaintiff's work. Familiar with quality and significance of Dr. Bernofsky's research addressing important scientific issues which is also evidenced by his grant support. Will address the loss of National Science Foundation grant because a working EPR was unavailable to Dr. Bernofsky. Familiar with the difficulty of obtaining funds for acquisition of an electron paramagnetic resonance spectrometer (EPR) and plaintiff's success in accomplishing such an endeavor. Familiar with the effective use of EPR and facilities and support required to foster free radical research.

4) Milton W. Seiler, Jr., M.D., Mercy Baptist Hospital Cancer Center, 2820 Napoleon Ave., Suite 400, New Orleans, LA. Specialist in Hematology/Medical Oncology. Will address diagnosis of plaintiff's malignant lymphoma, staging procedures, and protocol for remission induction therapies. Aware of intense emotional stress of plaintiff related to his position at Tulane University for the two-and-a-half years prior to his diagnosis. Will ascribe, in part, the appearance of Dr. Bernofsky's malignancy to the difficult period of stress that plaintiff endured during the previous two-and-a-half-year period.

5) Roderick Patrick, L.L.M., Patrick and Hesser, Attorneys at Law, specialist in immigration law. Will testify as to the ability of legal aliens to work at Tulane University Medical School at reduced salary given their visas.
 

Defendant's List of Witnesses:

I. Defendant will call the following witnesses:

Dr. James J. Corrigan
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Dr. Corrigan will testify as to Tulane Medical School's employment policies and procedures as they pertain to faculty members, requisite qualifications of professors within the Medical School and the job performance of plaintiff generally, including reasons for his termination.

Sheryl Gros
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Ms. Gros will testify as to plaintiff's research grants, Tulane Medical School's research program, the role of her office in grant administration, and her interactions with plaintiff.

Dr. Jim Karam
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Dr. Karam will testify as to Tulane Medical School's employment policies and procedures as they pertain to faculty members of the Department of Biochemistry, requisite qualifications of professors within the Medical School and the job performance of plaintiff generally, including reasons for his termination.

Dr. Yu-Teh Li
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Dr. Yu-Teh Li will testify as to activities within the Biochemistry Department, requirements and standards of the Biochemistry Faculty and plaintiff's job performance in general.

Dr. Richard H. Steele
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Dr. Steele will testify as to Tulane Medical School's employment policies and procedures as they pertain to faculty members, requisite qualifications of professors within the Medical School and the job performance of plaintiff generally, including reasons for his termination.

Dr. Rune L. Stjernholm
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Dr. Stjernholm will testify as to Tulane Medical School's employment policies and procedures as they pertain to faculty members, requisite qualifications of professors within the Medical School and the job performance of plaintiff generally, including reasons for his termination.

Any witness listed or called by plaintiff.

Any witness needed for rebuttal.
 

II. Defendant may call the following witnesses:

Dr. William Cohen
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Dr. Cohen will testify as to the activities within the Biochemistry Department, requirements and standards of the Biochemistry Faculty and plaintiff's performance within the Biochemistry Department.

Dr. Susan Allen
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Dr. Allen will testify as to plaintiff's research grants, Tulane Medical School's research program and the requisite qualifications of a Research Professor at Tulane Medical School.

William H. Baricos, Ph.D.
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Dr. Baricos will testify as to the activities within the Biochemistry Department, requirements and standards of the Biochemistry Faculty, plaintiff's performance within the Biochemistry Department and plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegation against Dr. Baricos of theft of intellectual property.

F. W. Bennett (economic expert)
203 Carondelet Street
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: 522-2822

Mr. Bennett will testify as to plaintiff's damages, if any exist.

E. Daniel Berry
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Mr. Berry will testify as to the inquiries and complaints by Dr. Bernofsky.

Earl F. Bihlmeyer
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Mr. Bihlmeyer will testify as to the inquiries and complaints by Dr. Bernofsky.

Frank Currie
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5425

Mr. Currie will testify as to the personnel policies and procedures as they pertain to faculty members within the Medical School.

Lynne A. Ebersole
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Ms. Ebersole will testify as to plaintiff's research grants, Tulane Medical School's research program, the role of her office in grant administration, and her interactions with plaintiff.

Dr. Eugene Hamori
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Dr. Hamori will testify as to the activities within the Biochemistry Department, requirements and standards of the Biochemistry Faculty and plaintiff's performance within the Biochemistry Department.

Thomas Lyttle
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Mr. Lyttle will testify as to the circumstances surrounding the acquisition and installation of the Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Spectrometer and the job performance of plaintiff generally.

Terry Miller
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Mr. Miller will testify as to plaintiff's research grants, Tulane Medical School's research program and grant administration and the requisite qualifications of a Research Professor at Tulane Medical School.

Mary L. Smith
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 587-7617

Ms. Smith will testify as to the personnel policies and procedures as they pertain to faculty members within the Medical School, and the role of her office as to same.

Carol A. Uhlich
c/o 1430 Tulane Avenue
New Orleans, LA 70112
Phone: 588-5263

Ms. Uhlich will testify as to the business of the Biochemistry Department, her interactions with plaintiff and plaintiff's job performance within the Department.

Any witness listed or called by plaintiff.

Any witness needed for rebuttal.
 

14.

This case is a jury case. The jury trial is not applicable to the issue of front pay.

a. Proposed jury instructions, special jury interrogatories, trial memoranda and any special questions that the Court is asked to put to perspective jurors on voir dire are to be delivered to the Court and opposing counsel not later than five working days prior to the trial date, unless specific leave to the contrary is granted by the Court.
 

15.

The issue of liability will be tried separately from that of quantum.

Damages

Compensatory Damages:

1) Loss of Wages = $464,312.97

Willfullness - x 2 (Liquidated Damages ADEA)

Environmental - x 3 (Liquidated Damages Env. Ret.)

2) Pain, suffering, humiliation, harm to professional reputation = $500,000 x 3 (Env. Ret.)

3) Interference with business relationship = $300,000 x 3 (Env. Ret.)

Punitive Damages:

15% ($19,000 (tuition) x 12,000 (students)) = $34,200,000 - malice or with reckless indifference to Dr. Bernofsky's federally-protected rights
 

16.

Summary judgment (partial or complete) will expedite disposition of this case.

Other Matters

Decisions on the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and any other motions made will expedite the disposition of this case.
 

17.

Trial shall commence on ____________________________, 199___, at 10:00 a.m. before the Judge with a jury. The trial is expected to last at least ten (10) days.
 

18.

This pre-trial order has been formulated after conference at which counsel for the respective parties have appeared in person. Reasonable opportunity has been afforded counsel for corrections, or additions, prior to signing. Hereafter, this order will control the course of the trial and may not be amended except by consent of the parties and the Court, or by order of the Court to prevent manifest injustice.
 

19.

The possibility of settlement of this case was discussed at a settlement conference scheduled on June 27, 1996, at 8:30 a.m. before Magistrate Judge Lance Africk.
 

20.

Signature spaces.
 
 

         Roger Phipps         
Attorney for Plaintiff
Roger D. Phipps #20326
PHIPPS & PHIPPS
210 Baronne Street, Suite 1410
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
(504) 524-2298
 
 

         Desha Dardenne         
Attorneys for Defendant
G. Phillip Shuler, T.A. (12047)
Julie D. Livaudais (1183)
Desha D. Dardenne (23019)
Chaffe McCall Phillips Toler & Sarpy
2300 Energy Centre
New Orleans, LA 70163
 
 

______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

---

 

Top 

APPENDIX

(Ed. Note: Page numbers refer to original document pages and here are hyperlinked to the appropriate reference).

	Page
A.  DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE	2A
B.  DISCRIMINATORY DENIAL OF TENURE/FAILURE TO PROMOTE BASED ON RACE	7A
C.  RETALIATION, HARASSMENT, AND INTERFERENCE DURING EMPLOYMENT BASED ON RACE AND/OR AGE	9A
D.  DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE BASED ON RACE AND/OR AGE	14A
E.  DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE BASED ON AGE	23A
F.  RETALIATORY DISCHARGE BASED ON AGE	24A
G.  MITIGATION	25A
H.  WANTON AND/OR RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THE STORAGE AND/OR HANDLING OF BLOOD-BORNE PATHOGENS AND HAZARDOUS OR TOXIC SUBSTANCES 2315.3	26A
I.  ENVIRONMENTAL RETALIATION	26A
J.  CONVERSION	27A

 

---

APPENDIX

A. DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE

1. Throughout his employment at Tulane, Dr. Bernofsky financed most of his research by obtaining outside grant money to support his research program.

2. In 1975, when he was a visiting professor, Dr. Bernofsky was told by Dr. Stjernholm, the previous Chairman of the Biochemistry Department, that he was expected to pay his own salary from his research grants. Subsequently, he was told that Tulane intended to make him a tenured member of the Department and that he needed only to "contribute" to his salary.

3. A Research Professor is not required to obtain research grants to support the majority of his salary. Nevertheless, the dollar value of Dr. Bernofsky's grant support followed an increasing trend.

4. The ability to generate research money is secondary to the ability to conduct quality research.

5. In 1977, Dr. Stjernholm gave Dr. Bernofsky a section of a grant application and a grant critique which demonstrated that the Dean of the Medical School, Dr. Hamlin, and Dr. Stjernholm had signed documents that were submitted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stating Tulane's intention to offer Dr. Bernofsky the next available tenured position in the Biochemistry Department.

6. In addition to verbal promises, Dr. Stjernholm wrote, in a grant application submitted to the NIH, in Tulane's Institution's Plans at paragraph 2: "Dr. Bernofsky is a competent cell biologist and biochemist and therefore can offer expertise in areas where the Department is deficient. It is proposed that we allow Dr. Bernofsky to develop his own research programs, to advise and direct graduate students and to become an integral part of the tenured faculty. (emphasis added) Within a few years several retirements of the present faculty will be in effect and Dr. Bernofsky is our primary choice for replacement."

7. Additionally, NIH's Experimental Therapeutics Study Section in a critique to an application to the National Cancer Institute wrote: "Dr. Bernofsky is currently Visiting Associate Professor in Biochemistry at Tulane University School of Medicine. The Study Section has learned that his department chairman intends him to be a permanent member when a tenured position becomes available." (emphasis added)

8. After Dr. Stjernholm's verbal and written promises to Dr. Bernofsky that he would be awarded the next tenured position, Dr. Bernofsky believed that his status carried the "prospect of tenure." Dr. Bernofsky's belief was based on Dr. Stjernholm's verbal representations and the written documents containing Dr. Stjernholm's and the Dean's signature.

9. The written contract governing Dr. Bernofsky's relationship with Tulane likewise was in accord with the promises of Dr. Stjernholm. The 1976 Faculty Handbook presented to Dr. Bernofsky when he joined the faculty at Tulane Medical School provides:

   "Nothing in this statement shall prevent a special faculty appointment from being converted into a regular appointment at the option of the University and the School or College to which the faculty member is attached." (Article II, Section 7, page 26.)

   "The purpose of the probationary period is to provide opportunity for demonstration of the suitability of the appointee . . . Any appointment after the faculty member has completed the probationary period automatically carries tenure." (Article III, Section 1 and Section 5, page 27.)

10. The 1976 Faculty Handbook does not contain any provision limiting the time period during which conversions from a special appointment to a regular appointment must occur.

11. The written and verbal promises of Dr. Stjernholm and the Dean to Dr. Bernofsky were evidence that Dr. Bernofsky's appointments carried "the prospect of tenure." Throughout the course of Dr. Bernofsky's employment at Tulane, under the contract governing him, the 1976 Faculty Handbook, an appointment that carries "the prospect of tenure" is considered a probationary appointment.

12. Throughout this period, because of the quality of Dr. Bernofsky's scholarship and the national and international recognition bestowed on Tulane by his research, Dr. Bernofsky was repeatedly reappointed to continue in the position of Research Professor at yearly intervals.

13. After two years of employment, Dr. Bernofsky was converted from a special appointment to an appointment having the prospect of tenure. In or around 1979, all special appointments were converted to regular appointments.

14. From 1973 to 1978, all faculty appointments were designated "special" appointments with the exception of department heads (809 F.2d 278 5th Cir. 1987).

15. According to the contract governing Dr. Bernofsky's relationship with Tulane, the positions held by Dr. Bernofsky during the course of his employment at Tulane could lead to tenure.

16. Around 1977 or 1978, two of Dr. Bernofsky's major grants were not renewed.

17. For approximately one-and-a-half years, Dr. Bernofsky continued in his position on the faculty without a salary and continued his research efforts until a new grant proposal was accepted and he received new funding.

18. Throughout the time he was Chairman, Dr. Stjernholm represented to Dr. Bernofsky that he would become tenured and, in the meantime, would be appointed annually with subsequent renewals as long as he continued to conduct his research program at Tulane. Based on such promises, Dr. Bernofsky continued to secure outside grant funding, continued to publish articles in scientific journals, and continued to focus his efforts on building his research program at Tulane.

19. The 1976 Faculty Handbook at Article II, Section 7 provides: "Nothing in this statement shall prevent a special appointment from being converted to a regular appointment..." Section 6 provides: "A regular appointment may be . . . continuous, namely an appointment with immediate tenure." (emphasis added)

20. The Faculty Handbook of 1986, Article II, Section 6(c) provides that conversion of a faculty member engaged primarily in research "may be made, but only once within the first seven years of full time service." The provision limiting conversion "only within the first seven years of full-time faculty service" was not applied in the case of Dr. Jen-sie Tou. In 1989, Dr. Jen-sie Tou was converted after having been employed for more than seven years in a research position.

21. It was reasonable for Dr. Bernofsky to believe that Dr. Stjernholm would eventually recommend him for conversion to a tenured position. His Chairman's verbal promises, along with the written promises signed by both Dr. Stjernholm and the Dean reasonably represented to Dr. Bernofsky that Tulane would grant him tenure. In subsequent years, this impression was further reinforced by Dr. Bernofsky's observation that an identically-situated member was converted from a research position to a tenured position, even though she had been in a research position longer than seven years.

22. Dr. Bernofsky remained at Tulane for more than 19 years, painstakingly building his research program. Throughout these years, Dr. Bernofsky was promised that he would become tenured, and in the last several years was repeatedly told that he already had de facto tenure. Dr. Bernofsky's reliance on Dr. Stjernholm's promise was reasonable under the circumstances, and he suffered damage as a result.

23. Taking Dr. Stjernholm at his word, Dr. Bernofsky patiently waited to have his position "converted" to a tenured position. In November 1991, the chairmanship of the Biochemistry Department changed; Dr. Jim Karam, of Lebanese origin, became Chairman. At their first meeting, and on at least two other occasions thereafter, Dr. Bernofsky explained to Dr. Karam that for years he had been promised that his research position would be "converted" into a tenured position. He requested that Dr. Karam initiate the process by putting his name up for "conversion" which would provide a grant of immediate tenure. Dr. Karam repeatedly replied that plaintiff's position was secure because after having been a full Research Professor for so many years, the plaintiff already had de facto tenure.

24. Dr. Bernofsky changed his position to his detriment because of his reliance on Dr. Stjernholm's verbal and written promises of tenure. After Dr. Stjernholm demonstrated both his and the Dean's intent to have him become the next tenured member in the Biochemistry Department, Dr. Bernofsky focused all his efforts and energies on building his research program at Tulane. He never undertook a major effort to move his funding, equipment, and program to another institution, and he continued to enhance his laboratories and research program.

25. By the time Tulane decided to terminate Dr. Bernofsky, he was a 61-year-old scientist. A midcareer scientist's program is more portable, and he has far greater opportunity of changing institutions than does a senior scientist. Also, Dr. Bernofsky had expended an enormous effort over several years to obtain funding to bring an EPR machine to Tulane for use in his research program. As another prominent scientist has stated, in times of scant resources, such an accomplishment was exceptional.

26. Rather than attempting to move his program, Dr. Bernofsky devoted his time and energy on developing a collaboration with five other professors at Tulane Medical School to establish a new program of scientific inquiry on the cutting edge of medical research. Thus, by relying on Dr. Stjernholm's promise of tenure, Dr. Bernofsky suffered an enormous loss of opportunity by remaining at Tulane.

27. Tulane ousted Dr. Bernofsky from the laboratories he had occupied and equipped with money he had secured almost exclusively from extramural granting agencies and personal funds. At the time his latest grant from the Air Force was awarded, the laboratories assigned to Dr. Bernofsky were set up to begin work immediately. As a consequence of his removal, Dr. Bernofsky was unable to conduct the proposed research, and the Air Force eventually requested the return of its funds. He was not allowed to take either his personal property or any of the equipment and supplies he brought to Tulane. He was only allowed to take his papers and books.

28. Upon his termination, Dr. Bernofsky immediately attempted to make arrangements to transfer his grant. However, the local research facility interested in his work lacked a vivarium and an EPR. In addition, a small laboratory was required at Tulane, where the EPR was located. Tulane refused to allow Dr. Bernofsky any laboratory space, even though it would have received payment in the form of indirect costs of approximately $80,000 allocated in the grant for overhead expenses. Without a laboratory and EPR in close proximity to each other, and the availability of a vivarium, the research was not feasible and could not be conducted.

29. To obtain the Air Force grant, Dr. Bernofsky had traveled to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base at his own expense and met with scientists at the well-known Armstrong Laboratory. The trip was taken at Tulane's suggestion, and Tulane made the initial contact. The Air Force grant was the identical proposal that Tulane declined to fund with intramural DOD funds because it said his proposal would have "no relevance to the DOD."

30. Because he was unable to conduct the research he proposed to the Air Force, it is unlikely that Dr. Bernofsky will ever again be able to secure funding from this agency. Moreover, his professional credentials will now be discounted in the eyes of his colleagues at Armstrong Laboratories.

31. Although Dr. Bernofsky was not satisfied with Dr. Karam's statements in response to his request that Tulane's long standing promise of tenure be honored, Dr. Bernofsky continued his research program at Tulane. He sought and was awarded additional grant funding. He pursued his endeavors in the field of free radicals. He brought a new area of expertise and recognition to Tulane in a newly-emerging field that is on the cutting edge of science.

32. Dr. Bernofsky's review of the contract governing him, the 1976 Faculty Handbook, parallelled Dr. Karam's statement that he had de facto or automatic tenure (even if the institution did not recognize him as officially tenured).

33. The 1976 Faculty Handbook states that a probationary period may not exceed seven years and if an appointment occurred after seven years, it "automatically carries tenure." (Article III, Section 3, page 27).

34. Because the provisions of his contract with Tulane lent credence to Dr. Karam's statement that he already had de facto tenure, Dr. Bernofsky continued his efforts in applying for grants. He continued to publish in refereed journals. He endeavored to accomplish the installation and operation of the EPR. But most significantly, he continued to nurture the free radical program at Tulane. He not only collaborated with Tulane faculty, but with others outside the institution for the furtherance of the free radical program at Tulane. In short, he changed his position to his detriment, damaging his professional reputation in the process.
     

    B. DISCRIMINATORY DENIAL OF TENURE/FAILURE TO PROMOTE BASED ON RACE

35. A Research Professor can be converted to a tenured position after the first seven years of employment. Dr. Jen-sie Tou, a similarly situated Research Professor in Dr. Bernofsky's department, was converted to tenured status long after her first seven years of employment at Tulane.

36. Throughout the 18 years she had been on the faculty, Dr. Tou had received appointment letters identical to those provided to Dr. Bernofsky. Receipt of these letters in no way precluded Dr. Tou from being converted to a tenured position after remaining in a research position for more than seven years.

37. Dr. Tou was converted with a grant of immediate tenure notwithstanding her lack of grant support and her meager publications. She was awarded automatic tenure because of the number of years she had been on the faculty.

38. Dr. Stjernholm recommended Dr. Bernofsky for tenure at the same time he recommended Dr. Tou. A comparison of credentials demonstrates that, over the same period, Dr. Bernofsky had generated significantly more grant monies than Dr. Tou, had more publications, and was considered an "outstanding researcher" and "superb lecturer." During the eight years prior to her tenure award, Dr. Tou received nearly all of her salary from the Department, even though she was also a Research Professor. No adverse employment action was taken against her. Instead, she was converted with an immediate grant of tenure. Moreover, Dr. Tou's tenure was made retroactive for more than ten months because of her "loyal and devoted services."

39. Although Dr. Bernofsky had been recommended at the same time as Dr. Tou, the Dean refused to forward the recommendation to the Personnel & Honors Committee as he was required to do by the Constitution and By-Laws of the University. Dr. Bernofsky was never notified that he had been recommended for tenure and only became aware of this when his personnel file was, in part, produced to him in March of 1996. If this information had been provided to him in 1989, or if the tenure recommendation had been considered and denied, he would have been entitled to a hearing before the Senate Committee on Faculty Tenure, Freedom and Responsibility.

40. Dr. Tou, a non-Jewish professor, was treated more favorably than Dr. Bernofsky.

41. Dr. Bernofsky was discriminatorily denied tenure. As a result, he was treated differently than other professors who received financial support to pay graduate students, technicians, and postdoctoral assistants working in their laboratories. Except for the last few months before they were forced to resign, Dr. Bernofsky's staff was paid entirely from his own research grants. Had the money Dr. Bernofsky paid his staff been credited to support of his own salary, Tulane's Departmental support for Dr. Bernofsky's salary would have been minimal.

42. Throughout the years when plaintiff was repeatedly told that he would become tenured, he was excluded from receiving other departmental resources made available to other professors in the Department. This systematic exclusion had an adverse effect on Dr. Bernofsky's research efforts and productivity and continued until the time of his discharge.

43. Subsequent to Dr. Tou's appointment, Dr. Stjernholm repeatedly told Dr. Bernofsky that he had nothing to worry about. In 1990 and 1991, during discussions about the teaching schedule for the coming academic year, Dr. Stjernholm again assured Dr. Bernofsky that he was working on securing tenure for him. Nevertheless, Tulane's ongoing refusal to convert Dr. Bernofsky persisted after Dr. Karam replaced Dr. Stjernholm as Chairman in November, 1991. Dr. Stjernholm admitted in his deposition that he was worried about what would happen to Dr. Bernofsky after he retired.

44. Dr. Bernofsky continued to request that Dr. Karam recommend him to the Personnel & Honors Committee because he was confident that when his name went before the Committee, his credentials and accomplishments would merit the granting of official tenure. Dr. Karam ignored Dr. Bernofsky's requests and told him that he already had de facto tenure.
     

    C. RETALIATION, HARASSMENT, AND INTERFERENCE DURING EMPLOYMENT BASED ON RACE AND/OR AGE

45. In November 1991, Dr. Jim Karam became Chairman of the Biochemistry Department. At his first meeting with Dr. Bernofsky, and on at least two other occasions thereafter, Dr. Bernofsky explained to Dr. Karam that for years he had been promised that his research position would be "converted" into a tenured position. He asked Dr. Karam to put his name up for "conversion," which would provide a grant of immediate tenure. Dr. Karam repeatedly replied that plaintiff's position was secure because after having been a full Research Professor for so many years, plaintiff had de facto tenure.

46. After Dr. Bernofsky requested the promised tenure from Dr. Karam, he began to be harassed, his research efforts were hampered until he lost funding, and he was evaluated by a method that did not comply with the requirements set out by the Dean. Finally, he was terminated despite the fact that he secured a $250,000 grant to support his research program before the deadline established by Tulane for obtaining new grant funds had passed.

47. Dr. Karam harassed and discriminated against plaintiff in a myriad of ways, not the least of which was his refusal to provide space for a $250,000 Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Spectrometer (EPR) that Dr. Bernofsky brought to Tulane. Dr. Karam interfered with the installation of the EPR for 13 months until the Louisiana Board of Regents threatened to rescind the grant. Tulane then transferred authority over the EPR to Mr. Thomas Lyttle of another department. During this same time period, work on Dr. Bernofsky's NSF grant, which required use of the EPR, could not progress. As a result, the NSF did not renew Dr. Bernofsky's grant.

48. Dean Fulginiti had promised the NIH on March 23, 1990 that Tulane would provide housing for the EPR and the technical support staff necessary to manage the instrument.

49. The NIH grant application itself stated: "...the EPR will be installed in the School of Medicine in a remodeled laboratory room of at least 250 square feet... A letter from the Dean of the Medical School describing this and other commitments is attached." A structural engineer who inspected the building where the Biochemistry Department is located verbally indicated that the EPR could be housed in the Biochemistry Department. Moreover, the same engineer reported that another piece of equipment more than double the weight of the EPR could be supported in the same building in which the Biochemistry Department was located.

50. The incidents concerning the acquisition, installation and use of the EPR have not been the subject of a grievance at the medical school. Rather, a narrowly focused grievance concerning Dr. Karam's refusal to approve the purchase of glassware, heat exchanger upgrade, software upgrade, and liquid nitrogen storage vessels was the subject of the grievance procedure.

51. During 1992-1994, plaintiff had active grants in the amount of approximately $750,000. These grants ended in 1994.

52. Throughout 1994, Dr. Karam was kept informed about plaintiff's potential sources of additional new funding. Dr. Karam offered false and misleading information to possible collaborators and intramural funding sources which made it impossible for plaintiff to secure local research funds before his 1994 grants ran out.

53. Following discussions with Dr. Karam about putting his name up for tenure, Dr. Bernofsky began experiencing an inability to obtain intramural grants; that is, institutional funds which Tulane has discretion to award. Most notably, he was told that a proposal he submitted to Tulane to obtain Department of Defense (DOD) intramural funds under Tulane's control was considered not relevant to the DOD. However, when he submitted the identical proposal directly to the DOD/Air Force, his proposal was immediately funded at the $250,000 level because of its excellence and relevance to the DOD/Air Force.

54. Dr. Karam interfered with plaintiff's staff, Drs. Bandara and Tang, who were paid primarily with plaintiff's grant funds.

55. As a result of the nonrenewal of his NSF grant, Dr. Bernofsky had no funds left to pay his research assistants, Drs. Bandara and Tang. Despite this lack of funding, Dr. Bandara, who had worked with Dr. Bernofsky for six-and-a-half-years, and Dr. Tang, who had worked with him for more than three years, agreed to continue working at a minimal salary in order to see their research projects to completion. During their work together, Dr. Bandara and Dr. Bernofsky co-authored articles that were published in preeminent scholarly journals. Dr. Tang published articles with him as well. The research team had made numerous significant discoveries working in a newly emerging field of medicine that recognizes free radical damage as the basis of carcinogenesis, aging, and a host of other chronic disease processes. At the time of Dr. Bernofsky's termination, Drs. Bandara, Tang, and Bernofsky had sixteen projects in progress which were not completed and several papers in preparation for publication. Dr. Karam refused to allow Dr. Bernofsky's assistants to work at salaries that Dr. Bernofsky had agreed to pay from his own personal funds. Dr. Karam refused to permit Dr. Tang to work for free on a voluntary basis. Dr. Tang was reduced to entering the lab discretely at off-hours to complete her research and finish a paper. Dr. Karam's refusal to permit Drs. Bandara and Tang to complete their work in Dr. Bernofsky's laboratory hindered his progress and ability to publish the results of his research efforts, and it also greatly damaged Drs. Bandara and Tang who had devoted significant portions of their careers to this work.

56. Drs. Bandara and Tang were forced to resign in 1994. Dr. Tang's F-2 visa status would have permitted her to work on a voluntary basis.

57. Dr. Karam treated younger faculty and non-Jewish faculty differently from senior Jewish faculty.

58. Plaintiff's curriculum vitae and research accomplisments were used by Tulane for recruiting graduate students and faculty members and for securing facilities grants. Despite this, Dr. Bernofsky received no benefits from these activities.

59. Dr. Karam's grant support in which he is principal investigator consists of one facilities grant, i.e., NSF Award No. 9214523 for $291,566. In order to receive that grant, Dr. Karam relied in part on Dr. Bernofsky's and Dr. Ehrlich's CVs and research programs. Dr. Karam refused to provide Dr. Bernofsky with any of the funds.

60. Dr. Yu-Teh Li pays 75% of his wife's salary, Dr. Su-Chen Li. However, Dr. Bernofsky consistently paid 100% of Dr. Bandara's salary. Dr. Su-Chen Li assists Dr. Yu-Teh Li in his laboratories much as Dr. Bandara assisted Dr. Bernofsky. Dr. Su-Chen Li and Dr. Bandara both had research appointments.

61. Other professors received ample support for stipends to pay graduate students working in their laboratories and funds to cover the salaries paid to their technicians and postdoctoral assistants. Dr. Bernofsky was never provided with funding for postdoctoral assistants, except for the last few months before their forced resignation. Because he remained officially untenured, Dr. Bernofsky was not provided with funds to pay the salaries of his research staff. Except for the months prior to their termination, Dr. Bernofsky's staff was supported exclusively from his grants, and this was an asset to the Biochemistry Department.

62. Dr. Karam hired younger, less-qualified Ph.D.s to join the Department and retained Dr. Su-Chen Li, a non-Jewish Research Professor who had no independent grant support of her own for at least the past ten years. Defendant refused to retain plaintiff on the basis of age and race. Plaintiff's educational background, experience, ability to acquire independent grant funding, publications in scholarly journals, and reputation in the scientific community rendered him eminently qualified for the position he held at Tulane. Dr. Bernofsky was an asset to the Biochemistry Department. At the time of Dr. Bernofsky's discharge, he had the ability to acquire grant funding and was publishing in scholarly journals.

63. A pattern exists in the Biochemistry Department of discrimination against senior Jewish faculty members. Of the two Jewish professors in the Department other than plaintiff, Dr. Karam stripped both of committee and teaching responsibilities. One then retired, and the other was harassed and discriminated against to the point where she is has been ousted from her laboratories in the Biochemistry Department.

64. Because Dr. Bernofsky was discriminatorily denied tenure, he was treated differently than other professors who received financial support to pay graduate students and postdoctoral assistants working in their laboratories and funds to cover the cost of equipment and supplies. Dr. Bernofsky's systematic exclusion from Departmental resources had an adverse effect on his research efforts and productivity. It continued in effect until the time of his discharge. Tulane's denial of tenure to Dr. Bernofsky and its subsequent retaliation culminating in discharge form a "continuing violation" under both 42 U.S.C. §1981 and/or the ADEA.

65. Alleged problems with Dr. Bernofsky's performance were not cited as problematic until after Dr. Bernofsky began complaining to Dr. Karam about not being converted to a tenured position. Claims of noncollegiality did not arise until after Dr. Bernofsky brought up the tenure issue with Dr. Karam.

66. Dr. Bernofsky chaired the EPR Advisory Committee and was a voting member of the University Senate Committee for the Coordinated Instrumentation Facility at the time of his termination. Prior to Dr. Karam's appointment as Chairman, Dr. Bernofsky served on two Biochemistry committees, i.e., the Tissue Culture Committee and Computer Committee.

67. After Dr. Karam's appointment as Chairman, Dr. Bernofsky was not reappointed to either Biochemistry Committee. Although he was appointed to the Seminar Committee, he was asked to perform only minor duties.

68. After Dr. Karam's appointment as Chairman, Dr. Bernofsky was removed from the Computer Committee. He was then not connected to Tulane's network like the other faculty in the Department, and he was not given computer equipment. Other than token committee work, Dr. Bernofsky was systematically excluded from departmental activities by Dr. Karam and, in particular, derived no benefit of funds available for travel and other research activities.

69. Dr. Bernofsky was always willing to teach Biochemistry courses, and he continued to give seminars and to lecture outside the Biochemistry Department after he was systematically excluded from Biochemistry Department activities by Dr. Karam. The last time Dr. Bernofsky taught a Biochemistry Course was in 1992 within the Biochemistry Department. Dr. Bernofsky gave lectures in the Pharmacology Department in 1992, 1993, and 1994.

70. Dr. Bernofsky never refused to teach lectures as required by his 1994-1995 "conditional" appointment.

71. Starting in 1990, the Department paid approximately 70% of Dr. Bernofsky's salary per academic year. Dr. Bernofsky's staff, who worked in his laboratories, were paid exclusively through extramural grant funding from his research grants except for the last few months before their employment at Tulane was terminated.

72. The only other Research Professor in the Department of Biochemistry after 1989 was Dr. Su-Chen Li. Her salary was paid from her husband's grants and departmental funds. She never generated any funds to pay her own salary as a principal investigator nor did she have publications independent of her husband, Dr. Yu-Teh Li. Dr. Su-Chen Li continues on the faculty of the Biochemistry Department as a Research Professor.

73. Notice of Dr. Bernofsky's Air Force grant award came on February 3, 1995, well within the time frame he had been given to secure additional funding for his research program (February 28, 1995). Nevertheless, Tulane terminated him effective April 21, 1995, and on May 3, 1995, without notice, locked him out of the laboratories which had been assigned to him at Tulane containing all of his equipment, research samples, and supplies. Because Dr. Bernofsky was unable to conduct the proposed research, the $250,000 award from the Air Force was ultimately rescinded. Dr. Bernofsky was locked out of his laboratories while settlement negotiations were underway.
     

    D. DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE BASED ON RACE AND/OR AGE

74. Dr. Karam devised a scheme to produce an unflattering evaluation of plaintiff, refused to honor his appointment through July 1995, refused to recommend him for promotion to one of the officially-available tenured positions within the Department, and refused to continue him in his faculty position for the next year even though plaintiff's research program was continuing and he had several significant papers in progress.

75. The Faculty Review Committee that reviewed Dr. Bernofsky's performance was not qualified to evaluate the quality or quantity of Dr. Bernofsky's work. They erroneously concluded that Dr. Bernofsky had been unsuccessful in obtaining grant support, that his research results and publications were sparse and in non peer-refereed journals. They incorrectly concluded that Dr. Bernofsky had taught no classes since 1992, was reclusive, and did not participate in departmental affairs.

76. Dr. Karam purposefully selected the Faculty Review Committee with the intention of securing a poor evaluation of Dr. Bernofsky.

77. The Faculty Review Committee did not include any members chosen by Dr. Bernofsky. Thus, the review of Dr. Bernofsky did not follow the procedures set forth for "Faculty Development and Review" as communicated by Dean Corrigan and according to which the faculty member is entitled to choose up to two members of the Review Committee.

78. According to the procedures set forth for "Faculty Development and Review," "[t]hree letters from peers at other institutions are encouraged." However, none were sought for Dr. Bernofsky by the Faculty Review Committee appointed by Dr. Karam. Furthermore, Dr. Karam ignored Dr. Bernofsky's disagreements with the review and never provided an opportunity for appeal.

79. The Faculty Review Committee stated that Dr. Bernofsky submitted grant proposals in an endless manner. They based this statement on the fact that 12 of his last research grant proposals were unfunded. Tulane's implication is that Dr. Bernofsky's grant proposals were deficient or of poor quality. However, review of the evaluations shows otherwise. Of the 12 grant applications not funded, the reviews by referees not associated with Tulane were always favorable, and some were rated excellent. The grant applications cited by the Review Committee consisted of four primary applications submitted to multiple granting agencies in accordance with customary practice for grant submissions. One of the rejected grants was Dr. Bernofsky's first attempt to secure funding to purchase the EPR. The NIH, in rejecting the proposal determined that, because no one else other than Dr. Bernofsky at Tulane had the requisite expertise to make use of an EPR, it would not fund Dr. Bernofsky's application. It was the lack of expertise at Tulane that led to rejection of the grant, not any shortcoming on Dr. Bernofsky's part. Similarly, Dr. Bernofsky's last NSF grant was not renewed because the work he proposed required use of an EPR. The NSF grant was active during the time period when installation of the EPR was delayed for over a year. Thus, this grant rejection was directly related to problems caused by Tulane rather than any shortcomings on Dr. Bernofsky's part.

80. Dr. Bernofsky's published work (FASEB J. Vol. 5, 295-300, 1991), which was cited by Harvard University Professors (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 91, 12362-12364, 1994), was not considered by the Review Committee.

81. One of Dr. Bernofsky's manuscripts under preparation at the time of his termination was published shortly thereafter in Molecular & Cellular Biochemistry (Vol. 148, 155-164, 1995). Molecular & Cellular Biochemistry is a well-respected, peer-reviewed journal. Dr. Bernofsky had provided the Review Committee with information of his work in progress; however, this work was not considered.

82. Dr. Bernofsky's published articles in the Journal of Organic Chemistry (Vol. 57, 2652-2657, 1992 and Vol. 59, 1642-1654, 1994) were not considered by the Review Committee. The Journal of Organic Chemistry is considered a "premier" journal in the field of chemistry.

83. Tulane University's listing in Peterson's Guide includes Dr. Bernofsky and his areas of research. Peterson's Guide is used to recruit students and faculty. Additionally, Tulane University's Ph.D. Program in Biochemistry brochure cites Dr. Bernofsky and his research program in the area of free radicals. This brochure is also used to recruit students and faculty. Nevertheless, Dr. Bernofsky was not recognized for this work in the Faculty Review Committee evaluation.

84. Dr. Bernofsky's grant funds compensated Tulane for overhead costs. However, the Review Committee did not consider the indirect funds that his grants brought to the University, nor did they consider the $250,000 EPR machine he brought to Tulane. Many of Dr. Bernofsky's grants provided 51% in indirect costs. As such, Tulane received 51% of the total grant amount to cover overhead expenses.

85. Of the three members appointed to the Faculty Review Committee, only one, Dr. Steele, had the requisite expertise for evaluating Dr. Bernofsky's work. However, Dr. Steele had been retired from the Department for approximately five years. Thus, he was not in a position to evaluate various aspects of Dr. Bernofsky's performance in the Department. The other two members of the Review Committee relied upon Dr. Steele to evaluate Dr. Bernofsky's publications. Nevertheless, at his deposition, Dr. Steele testified that he did not evaluate Dr. Bernofsky's recent publications or his work in progress.

86. Except for a junior faculty member, Dr. Landry, who was due a required three-year tenure track evaluation, only Drs. Ehrlich and Bernofsky, the Department's senior Jewish faculty members, were singled out to receive performance evaluations. The evaluations of Drs. Ehrlich and Bernofsky were negative; other faculty in the Department did not have such adverse action taken against them.

87. Dr. Karam's staff treated the senior Jewish faculty members differently than other professors. Dr. Karam's actions against all three senior Jewish faculty members in the Department demonstrated his improper animus and provides evidence that his refusal to recommend Dr. Bernofsky for official tenure, his harassment and retaliation, and termination of Dr. Bernofsky were unlawfully motivated. Dr. Bernofsky's status as a senior Jewish faculty member was a motivating factor in Tulane's adverse employment decisions. Dr. Bernofsky's age played an impermissible role in Tulane's decisions regarding Dr. Bernofsky's employment.

88. Dr. Bernofsky never accused Dr. Baricos, a fellow faculty member, of theft of his intellectual property. Instead, Dr. Karam accused Dr. Bernofsky of accusing Dr. Baricos of theft. Dr. Karam created a conflict between these two faculty members. Dr. Karam mischaracterized an occurrence that involved the manner in which Dr. Karam's staff handled a grant proposal and later cited the purported accusation as an example of non-collegiality. Dr. Baricos also had conflicts with the other senior-Jewish faculty members in the Biochemistry Department.

89. While Dr. Bernofsky was collegial, Dr. Karam was non-collegial. Discord in the Biochemistry Department resulted from Dr. Karam's non-collegiality which was recognized by the highest governing body at Tulane: the Senate Committee on Faculty Tenure, Freedom, and Responsibility (FTFR Committee). After Dr. Karam's appointment as Chairman, collegiality in the Department of Biochemistry regarding the senior Jewish professors has suffered.

90. The only other non-tenured Research Professor in the Department, Dr. Su-Chen Li, has no teaching responsibilities. None are required for her; she teaches in her husband's place. However, her husband, Dr. Yu-Teh Li, a tenured Professor in the Biochemistry Department, has significant teaching responsibilities. The benefit of Dr. Su-Chen Li's assumption of her husband's teaching responsibilities inures to her husband since tenured faculty are expected to carry a significant load of teaching. Dr. Su-Chen Li has never generated a grant on the strength of her own credentials as a principal investigator. However, Tulane has never taken an employment action against her.

91. In contrast to Dr. Su-Chen Li, Dr. Bernofsky assumed his own teaching responsibilities for 16 years. Dr. Bernofsky never refused to teach. Dr. Bernofsky merely expressed his opinion that if he assumed additional teaching duties, he should have the same security afforded other faculty.

92. Dr. Yu-Teh Li pays 75% of his wife's salary, Dr. Su-Chen Li. However, Dr. Bernofsky consistently paid 100% of Dr. Bandara's salary. Dr. Su-Chen Li assists Dr. Yu-Teh Li in his laboratories much as Dr. Bandara assisted Dr. Bernofsky. The difference is that the Department has always paid 100% of Dr. Yu-Teh Li's salary.

93. Furthermore, Tulane failed to consider that Dr. Bernofsky brought substantial indirect funds to the Department. Dr. Su-Chen Li has never generated any grant as a principal investigator and thus never brought indirect funds to the Department.

94. Within the first two weeks after Dr. Karam arrived, he took adverse action against all three Jewish faculty members. Dr. Karam required both Drs. Bernofsky and Cohen to move out of their offices. Relocating the huge amount of files containing research papers, grant information, publications, etc. was an enormous burden. In Dr. Bernofsky's case, this dislocation took months to remedy because he was required to move his office into a smaller area that required renovation. Neither Dr. Cohen nor Dr. Bernofsky willingly moved.

95. Around October 1, 1991, before he arrived at Tulane University Medical School, Dr. Karam wrote an inflammatory letter to Dr. Ehrlich accusing her of improper behavior. The FTFR Committee cited Dr. Karam for non-collegiality, partly as a result of this letter. Dr. Karam also wrote a letter to Dean Fulginiti stating that, "he would have liked to propose a faster rate of faculty turnover . . . to expedite faculty turnover..." After his arrival, one professor was retired who had a substance abuse problem; however, the remaining turnovers have come from the ranks of the senior Jewish professors. Dr. Cohen was encouraged to retire, Dr. Bernofsky was terminated, and Dr. Ehrlich has been subjected to physical removal from within the Department.

96. In 1992, Dr. Ehrlich obtained a copy of a "form letter" or "XXX" letter which was used by a "secret committee" that had been organized by Dr. Karam to "deal" with Dr. Ehrlich. The form letter is believed to have been written by Dr. Karam. This "XXX" letter sets out a "formula" for discrediting a professor within the Department.

97. The formula was applied to both Dr. Bernofsky and Dr. Ehrlich. The formula focuses on creating the impression that "XXX" had conflicts with the secretarial staff and was not liked by his/her peers.

98. With or without the "XXX" letter, the same pattern of allegations lodged by Dr. Karam against Dr. Bernofsky have also been lodged against Dr. Ehrlich by Dr. Karam. Dr. Karam has accused Dr. Ehrlich of many of the same behaviors he attributed to Dr. Bernofsky.

99. Dr. Karam has accused both Dr. Bernofsky and Dr. Ehrlich of refusing to cover grant overdrafts. Prior to Dr. Karam's arrival, Dr. Ehrlich consistently had the first or second highest grant funding, and Dr. Bernofsky had the third highest grant funding in the Department.

100. Dr. Karam repeatedly accused both Dr. Bernofsky and Dr. Ehrlich of refusing to provide his office with copies of grant applications and other paperwork. Dr. Karam's evaluations of both Dr. Bernofsky and Dr. Ehrlich in large part follow his "XXX" written formula.

101. Dr. Ehrlich testified that from the time she first arrived at Tulane, Dr. Yu-Teh Li has not gotten along with her and seemed to have "a chip on his shoulder." Similarly, Dr. Li has had conflicts with Dr. Bernofsky concerning lab equipment that Dr. Cohen made available when he was displaced from his laboratory. Dr. Bernofsky wrote a memorandum to Dr. Karam in January 1992 concerning this conflict. The memorandum was ignored by Dr. Karam.

102. Dr. Karam was aware that Dr. Li had conflicts with both Dr. Bernofsky and Dr. Ehrlich, yet he chose to select Dr. Li to sit on the Review Committee which evaluated Dr. Bernofsky's performance. In his support of Dr. Karam, Dr. Li wrote to Dean Corrigan that Dr. Ehrlich had been a problem since she joined the faculty. Dr. Li asked the Dean to "help us find a long term solution to this problem." (emphasis added)

103. Drs. Cohen, Bernofsky, and Ehrlich all had problems with Dr. Baricos. Dr. Baricos claimed that Dr. Bernofsky accused him of "intellectual theft" of a grant proposal. This claim forms the basis for Dr. Karam's assertion that Dr. Bernofsky was non-collegial. Dr. Baricos had an earlier dispute with Dr. Cohen over the principal authorship of an article that Dr. Baricos claimed was his. Dr. Ehrlich filed a grievance against Dr. Baricos that included sexual harassment.

104. Dr. Karam ignored environmental problems affecting both Dr. Bernofsky and Dr. Ehrlich. Dr. Bernofsky complained about blood, animal hair, and chemicals raining down into his laboratory from the floor above. Rather than attempting to remedy the environmental problem, Dr. Karam focused the blame on Dr. Bernofsky and complained of Dr. Bernofsky's "harping." Dr. Karam sought to have Dr. Bernofsky reprimanded at grievance proceedings. The Grievance Committee did not deny all of Dr. Bernofsky's grievances.

105. Dr. Ehrlich's experiences were similar to Dr. Bernofsky's concerning environmental problems. In Dr. Ehrlich's case, Dr. Karam directed discharges from his laboratory into her office, creating a noxious odor. When Dr. Ehrlich complained, no corrective action was taken by Dr. Karam until she wrote to Environmental Safety. Dr. Karam then delayed the requisition that was needed to pay for the work necessary to correct the problem.

106. Dr. Karam called Dr. Ehrlich's laboratories "ratholes." Dr. Ehrlich testified that she knew the connotation of the term "Jew-rat."

107. Dr. Richard Steele, one of the decision makers and a Review Committee member with significant input into the peer evaluation of Dr. Bernofsky, stated at his deposition that Tulane had "so many Jewish people," it was called "Jewlane."

108. Eminent scholars in Dr. Bernofsky's field, who are familiar with his work, state that he is a respected and productive scientist. Dr. Gary R. Buettner, Ph.D., Director of the Free Radical Research Institute and ESR Facility, University of Iowa, College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA stated:

     "...I am most impressed that Dr. Bernofsky was successful in spearheading a coordinated effort to bring the newest generation of electron paramagnetic resonance spectrometer to Tulane University. Because of the large capital investment (approximately $250,000), this instrumentation is very difficult for universities to acquire..."

109. Dr. Bernofsky has received many grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation, among others, to conduct his research. He has been invited for the last five years to participate in Gordon conferences and present papers concerning his research. Gordon conferences are elite conferences of scientists; admittance is by invitation and subject to peer review, which clearly demonstrates that his work is respected by others in the field. He was also invited and attended the International Symposium on Spin Trapping, another elite conference of researchers.

110. Plaintiff is a member of the following Professional Societies: American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oxygen Society, EPR Society, New York Academy of Sciences, American Chemical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Phi Lamda Upsilon, and Sigma Xi.

111. Plaintiff has published numerous articles and papers in major journals in his field.

112. Plaintiff has received grants from the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, American Institute for Cancer Research, The Cancer Society of Greater New Orleans, and the Ladies Leukemia League to continue his cancer research program which encompasses studies of human leukemia. These agencies provided indirect costs to Tulane for the operation and maintenance of research space.

113. Plaintiff has made significant discoveries. Among these, plaintiff is the discoverer of the adenine nucleotide free radical and the role of chlorinated intermediates in neutrophil-mediated tissue damage.

114. Although plaintiff's position as a Research Professor did not require him to teach, he taught for 16 years an advanced course in bioenergetics at the Medical School.

115. Dr. Bernofsky was never told that his primary obligation was to provide salary support for his position.

116. At all relevant times, Dr. Bernofsky was and continues to be qualified for the position of Research Professor in the Department of Biochemistry. Dr. Bernofsky successfully performed as a Research Professor at Tulane from 1975 until his termination.

117. Dr. Bernofsky was qualified for the position he held, as well as the tenured position awarded to an identically-situated faculty member, Dr. Jen-sie Tou.

118. Dr. Bernofsky successfully assembled an EPR grant application that had five other Tulane collaborators. This effort is a demonstration of collegiality. Dr. Karam's charge of non-collegiality is based on a purported accusation. Prior to Dr. Karam's arrival, there were no charges of collegiality against Dr. Bernofsky.

119. Dr. Bernofsky's grant funding fell off as a result of Dr. Karam's interference and harassment.

120. Had Dr. Bernofsky and his staff not been interfered with and ultimately terminated, and if he had been able to use the EPR in a timely manner, he would not have lost his NSF grant and would have been able to continue generating grant funding as he had done prior to Dr. Karam's arrival.

121. Tulane retained persons with comparable or lesser qualifications not in the protected class.

122. Neither Dr. Hamori nor Dr. Cohen, full professors of similar age, submitted applications for grant funds since Dr. Karam became Chairman; but only Dr. Cohen, who is Jewish, was encouraged to retire early.

123. Dr. Su-Chen Li is the only other non-tenured Research Professor in the Department. She is not in the protected class, has comparable or lesser qualifications than Dr. Bernofsky, and continues to be retained by Tulane.

124. Dr. Bernofsky was exempt from all educational activities because he was a research professor. Dr. Su-Chen Li also has no teaching responsibities because she is a research professor.

125. Dr. Bernofsky's department is actively recruiting Biochemistry candidates with lesser credentials and is allowing faculty members with lesser credentials outside the protected class to continue in their positions.

126. Dr. Bernofsky had not lost his ability to acquire funding and was publishing in quality, peer-reviewed journals.

127. Dr. Wood's expert report states:

     Based on this record, one would predict that, absent the situation that is the subject of this lawsuit, Dr. Bernofsky would have continued to receive an increasing dollar volume of grants during 1994, 1995, and in subsequent years, and would have continued to benefit the Tulane Medical School significantly and materially.

     ... Dr. Bernofsky was, in business terms, an "asset" of the Biochemistry Department and the Tulane School of Medicine. That is, evaluated on a business basis, according to the principles of accounting, Dr. Bernofsky brought in more benefits than costs to the Biochemistry Department, and the accumulation of these net benefits in years prior to 1993 was still positive even after his grants ceased, so that the accumulated investment which he provided to the Department had not yet eroded by the lack of grant sources, even by the time of his dismissal of 1995 ...

     ... The accounting conventions which may have been employed to give the appearance that Dr. Bernofsky was carried in an economic sense by the Biochemistry Department do not describe reality of the situation, but are arbitrary constructions ...

     ... Economically, viewing Dr. Bernofsky's laboratory as a "profit center" . . . shows that Dr. Bernofsky's activities were a net economic benefit to the Biochemistry Department. . . . The Department assertion that a certain percentage of Dr. Bernofsky's salary (such as 65% or more) was covered by the Department, resulting in the idea that Dr. Bernofsky personally constituted a net economic drain on the Department, is not correct.

      

     E. DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE BASED ON AGE

     (Some of the facts previously fully set forth above under 42 U.S.C. §1981 apply to discriminatory discharge under the ADEA based on age.)

128. Dr. Bernofsky was qualified for the position of Research Professor; Tulane refused to promote him and instead discharged him.

129. The recent hires in the Biochemistry Department at Tulane are under forty years of age. Dr. Bernofsky has more publications to his credit, has a long track record of generating grant funding as a principal investigator with national granting agencies, and has brought more research projects to successful fruition than any of the three younger professors.

130. Dr. Bernofsky was replaced by Dr. Samuel Landry, whose work is similar. Alternatively, under the restructuring of the Biochemistry Department, there are no plans to continue having professors designated as Research Professors.

131. Dr. Stjernholm, a decision maker and former Chairman, testified that Tulane's viewpoint is: "You've got to have some openings so he can put young faculty in. That's the reason why Dr. Karam can ask for young people to come into the department and help educate graduate students and do research."

132. Dr. Landry's work is more closely related to Dr. Bernofsky's than that of anyone else in the Biochemistry Department. The principal emphasis of Dr. Landry's research is the structure and function of enzymes and proteins. Although the primary focus of Dr. Bernofsky's research involves free radicals and electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy (EPR), he was trained as an enzymologist and also conducts research on enzymes and proteins. Dr. Landry has a background in nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR). Both methods of exploration involve sophisticated magnetic resonance techniques; thus, their areas of scientific expertise overlap. Dr. Landry hired a postdoctoral fellow whose responsibilities, in part, were to become familiar with the EPR instrumentation that Dr. Bernofsky brought to Tulane.

133. Dr. Karam's letter outlining his plans to accelerate departures from the Department shows that he intended to treat age as a negative factor. His stereotyping of Dr. Bernofsky as an "old guy" who had been around for so long and had de facto tenure further shows his bias against older faculty members in general, and Dr. Bernofsky in particular. Dr. Karam's remarks create an inference of bias.

134. Dr. Stjernholm testified at his deposition that slots had to remain open in the Biochemistry Department for Dr. Karam to fill. Dr. Stjernholm himself was harassed because he did not retire as Tulane had wished. These facts, coupled with Dr. Karam's stated desire to accelerate retirements in the Department and his other age-related comments, create an inference that age bias played a determinative role in Tulane's refusal to grant Dr. Bernofsky tenure, his harassment, the interference with his research program, and his subsequent discharge.

135. In his attempt to secure funds from the NSF for renovations, Dr. Karam relied on the qualifications of two senior Jewish faculty members and four other members of the Department of Biochemistry. After obtaining the grant, Dr. Karam refused to allocate any of the funds to renovate the laboratories of the senior Jewish faculty. However, Dr. Karam provided approximately $135,000 each to assist the younger faculty members outside the protected class who were being treated more favorably than senior Jewish faculty members.

136. Tulane impermissibly considered Dr. Bernofsky's age and race when taking adverse action against him. Prior to his discharge, Dr. Bernofsky complained of prejudicial treatment.
      

     F. RETALIATORY DISCHARGE BASED ON AGE

     (Most of the facts previously fully set forth above under 42 U.S.C. §1981 apply to retaliatory discharge under the ADEA based on age.)

137. Problems with Dr. Bernofsky's performance and claims of non-collegiality were not cited as problematic until after Dr. Bernofsky complained to Dr. Karam about not being converted to a tenured position.

138. On three separate occasions, Dr. Karam told Dr. Bernofsky that an "old guy" who had been around for so long had "de facto tenure."

139. Tulane's conduct complained of herein was willful and in disregard of Dr. Bernofsky's rights. Tulane's supervisory personnel were aware that discrimination against plaintiff on the basis of age and race was unlawful but acted in reckless disregard of the law.

140. The last unlawful act of Defendant occurred within 180 days of the filing of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge.
      

     G. MITIGATION

141. To secure the Air Force grant, Dr. Bernofsky took two days of vacation and traveled to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base to meet with scientists at the highly-respected Armstrong Laboratory to discuss his research proposal. Following his talk and meeting with scientists at the Armstrong Laboratory, his grant proposal was funded. Shortly thereafter, in May-June 1995, he accepted an invitation from the Air Force to participate in a conference to discuss his research. The unavailability of laboratories in which to conduct the proposed research was ultimately responsible for the loss of the grant. Thus, the work he discussed with scientists at the Armstrong Laboratory was not accomplished.

142. Dr. Bernofsky was diagnosed with cancer in June 1995. The harassment and retaliation he experienced during the time preceding his termination, and despondency over the loss of his laboratories and career, correlates with the development of a malignant lymphoma, and there is evidence to ascribe, in large part, the appearance of the lymphoma to that stress.

143. Dr. Bernofsky underwent extensive chemotherapy and radiation treatment, but during this time period also published a research paper and was a peer-reviewer for articles submitted to journals for publication.

144. During his treatment, Dr. Bernofsky made reasonable efforts to secure another position, but these efforts were severely limited by his medical condition. His radiation and chemotherapy treatments have been concluded. However, Dr. Bernofsky remains under the care of a clinical oncologist and a radiation oncologist, and he is still anemic as a result of the treatments he underwent.

145. Despite Dr. Bernofsky's serious illness, he diligently endeavored to secure other employment or a collaborative arrangement in order to be able to retain the $250,000 Air Force Grant he had secured as principal investigator.

146. Dr. Bernofsky is now severely handicapped in locating another position because he no longer has his equipment, supplies, grant support, or a professional affiliation.
      

     H. WANTON AND/OR RECKLESS DISREGARD IN THE STORAGE AND/OR HANDLING OF BLOOD-BORNE PATHOGENS AND HAZARDOUS OR TOXIC SUBSTANCES 2315.3

147. Flooding incidents involving blood, animal hair, and chemicals occurred into Dr. Bernofsky's laboratory. Despite Dr. Bernofsky's repeated complaints to the University, Tulane took no meaningful action to correct the environmental and health hazards associated with the flooding. Dr. Bernofsky had to take personal responsibility for cleaning the hazardous substances, blood and other wastes from his laboratory. The issue of flooding of waste matter from laboratories located on the floor above Dr. Bernofsky's laboratories was a persistent problem requiring action by Tulane's administration.

148. Dr. Ehrlich experienced similar environmental problems.
      

     I. ENVIRONMENTAL RETALIATION

149. About six months after Dr. Karam became Department Chairman, a flooding incident occurred at the Medical School in which wastes including blood, animal hair, and unidentified chemicals seeped from a laboratory on the floor above into plaintiff's laboratory. Despite complaints to the University, including the Dean and Dr. Karam, no corrective action was taken.

150. Although, Dr. Bernofsky complained about blood and chemicals seeping into his laboratories in good faith, his complaints were ridiculed by Dr. Karam as "harping." On January 24, 1995, plaintiff took a grievance concerning a specific matter related to the flooding to a hearing by the School of Medicine Grievance Committee.

151. The Grievance Committee determined that Dr. Bernofsky's complaint was not a grievance properly addressed by that Committee because Dr. Karam stated to the Committee that he would take steps to remedy the problem. However, Dr. Karam never attempted to remedy the problem. Instead, on January 31, 1995, plaintiff received notice from Dr. Karam to turn in his identification card and keys, and prepare to remove his personal equipment from the laboratories assigned to him at Tulane. Thus, Tulane took adverse employment action against Dr. Bernofsky after he filed the grievance concerning this issue, and he was terminated shortly thereafter.
      

     J. CONVERSION

152. Dr. Bernofsky secured almost every item in the laboratories where he worked at Tulane either through personal funds or grant funds. Unquestionably, Dr. Bernofsky owns the equipment he paid for personally. He also owns at least two inventions and a number of unique chemical substances unavailable elsewhere that he synthesized in preparation for future work.

153. Furthermore, when a granting agency provides funds for the purchase of equipment, the usual practice is for that equipment to remain with the researcher as long as he is able to continue doing research.

154. Except for a few individual items, Dr. Bernofsky was never provided with equipment from Tulane. Thus, Dr. Bernofsky owns certain of the equipment outright and has receipts and records to prove this fact. As to the remainder, he has a greater possessory right than does Tulane.

155. Tulane locked plaintiff out of the laboratories assigned to him and converted all his laboratory equipment and supplies to defendant's own use despite plaintiff's compliance with Tulane's demand that he submit a detailed listing of the items in the laboratories he intended to remove.

156. On June 10, 1996, Dr. Karam began the distribution of the contents of Dr. Bernofsky's laboratories.

157. Additionally, Tulane took possession and control of Dr. Bernofsky's last paycheck. Tulane claims Dr. Bernofsky was "employed" through April 21; however, he was paid only through the end of March.
     
     
     Top 

     ---

     Web site created November, 1998     This section last modified February, 2001
       |  Home Page  |  Site Map  |  About Bernofsky  |  Curriculum Vitae  |  Lawsuits  |  Case Calendar  |
     |  Judicial Misconduct  |  Judicial Reform  |  Contact  |  Disclaimer  |  

     ---

     This Web site is not associated with Tulane University or its affiliates
     © 1998-2015 Carl Bernofsky - All rights reserved