CHRISTOPHER DORNER: A BLACK MALE L.A. AIRPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT *OFFICER IS A BENEFICIARY OF THE "DORNER EFFECT"

Los Angeles, California

June 20, 2013

*This blog is submitted and contributed as part of the War on Racial Discrimination in California.

*Denotes new information has been added to the original blog

***The facts for this blog are based on the L.A. Times article, "L.A. airport police officer wins job back", March 11, 2013. I thank the L.A. Times for publishing this article, for I would not have known of this case and situation but for the article.

When Officer Rodney J. Rouzan, a 12-year veteran of the Los Angeles Airport Police Department got his job back after being terminated for an alleged assault with a deadly weapon, it was the result of the "Dorner Effect". That is, it was probably the result of the city's Board of Civil Service Commissioners (BCSC), and in particular, Judy Gust, the commission's Hearing Examiner, being aware of the Christopher Dorner case, whereby Chris Dorner,a Black former LAPD officer, through his "manifesto", declared that he was wrongfully fired from his position as a police officer with the L.A. Police Department through an unfair decision by the Board of Rights(BOR)(the administrative board governing LAPD police firings that would be similar to the Board of Civil Service Commissioners here) and that the wrongful firing had ruined his good name and his life. And, he cited this unfair decision combined with other decisions as reasons for his "war" (I have designated and proclaimed this his "war on racial discrimination"--WRD), which resulted in his death.

I believe that as a result of the serious damage caused by Dorner's war, including the loss of lives, and the merits of his claims, e.g., that the BOR had unfairly fired him, the BCSC and Commissioner Gust took a closer look at Mr. Rouzan's case, and were more meticulous and fair in reaching a decision. Of course, it required Gust being a reasonably fair person or adjudicator from the outset in order for the push of the "Dorner Effect" to produce the fair outcome for Rouzan. But, I believe it was the Dorner effect that assured Rouzan a positive and fair outcome, and ultimately, the return of his position with the L.A. Airport Police Department.

Briefly, (based on facts identified in the above-entitled L.A.Times article; which is the primary source for the facts of this blog), the case before the BCSC was centered on a complaint filed with the airport police department whereby there were allegations that Rouzan had pulled a gun on several men (one of which was a former business partner-neighbor with whom Rouzan had a conflict) during a confrontation at or outside his(Rouzan's) home regarding the former business partner attempting to serve Rouzan with legal papers. Rouzan apparently denied that the scenario of the gun-pulling actually happened (that is, he denied pulling a gun on anyone). Pursuant to an investigation by the Airport Police Department (APD), the APD found that Rouzan's actions "conflicted with his duties as a police officer and violated policies forbidding illegal behavior" and "fired Rouzan on May 22, 2010."

However, unlike Dorner's case, where the BOR chose to believe the evidence of the accused (the woman Dorner accused of kicking a mentally-ill man)and the LAPD, even though Dorner had testimony from the victim and his father(whom had no motive to lie) (in addition to Dorner himself) contradicting the accused's testimony and other LAPD evidence, Commissioner Gust "said she was not persuaded by the police department's witnesses because of their inconsistent descriptions of the incident and because they had hostile motives stemming from Rouzan's earlier court victory (in Dorner's case, the hostile motives would be snitching on a colleague in defense of a suspect). She noted that the men did not tell sheriff's deputies that Rouzan had pointed a gun at them -- something they later told airport police investigators."

The facts or findings in Rouzan's case in some ways mirror the facts or findings in Dorner's case, e.g., "inconsistent descriptions of the incident" and "hostile motives" on behalf of police department witnesses. The difference , in Dorner's case, is that Dorner received a racially-motivated and biased interpretation of the facts and evidence, while Rouzan received a honest and fair interpretation, based in part, in my opinion, on the Dorner Effect and a fair judge (an unfair and dishonest judge would not have found in Rouzan's favor, and there would not have been a "Dorner effect", because a dishonest or biased judge would not consider the Dorner Effect. The Dorner Effect can only influence a potentially fair judge who truly may be indecisive about the outcome of a case based on certain facts. The Dorner Effect causes a potentially fair judge to perform "strict scrutiny" of a close case involving an African American male or other black male, and assure his or herself that he or she is being unbiased in his or her assessment of the case. In other words, the Dorner Effect will assure that a case which ordinarily should be ruled in favor of an African American male or other black male, will, in fact, be ruled in the black male's favor).

Finally, in the Times article referred to above, it was stated that "Gust further ruled that there was nothing to support Rouzan's assertions that he was fired because of his race -- he is African American. . . ." This is absolute nonsense. And it's just another person, black or white (although I believe Gust is white--but, I don't know for sure) who refuses to face the reality of racism and racial discrimination in America. The only reason Gust could make this ruling was because she did not review the case as a racial discrimination case; rather, she reviewed and treated the case as an ordinary wrongful termination case, without an examination of the racial component or the criteria for proving racial discrimination in an employment termination case. Rouzan, like Chris Dorner, can clearly support his assertions that he was fired because of his race by referring to and relying upon the McDonnell-Douglas *Corp v. Green, *411 U.S. 792(1973) formula for proving race discrimination based on circumstantial or indirect evidence, as opposed to direct evidence. And, based on the McDonnell-Douglas' prima facie case for proving racial discrimination in termination, discharge, or firing, as altered, i.e., (1) membership in a protected class; (2) qualification for the position and satisfaction of its normal requirements; and (3) the defendant employer discharged the plaintiff under circumstances that gives rise to an inference of discrimination, Rouzan's assertions that he was fired because of his race was clearly supported by the record. *"If established, the prima facie case creates a rebuttable presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the plaintiff." Dominquez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dept., 424 F.3d 1027, 1037 (9th Cir. 2005)

For Rouzan, being African American, he was a member of a protected class; there was no dispute regarding Rouzan's qualifications for the position of police officer, therefore it can be assumed that Rouzan was qualified to be a police officer with the APD, having worked for the Department for 12 years; and Rouzan was fired based on the assertions of a former business partner-neighbor that he had earlier had a conflict with and who had a motive to lie, and Rouzan's firing was not based on his qualifications as a police officer or his abilities to perform police officer duties. Thus, satisfaction of the McDonnell-Douglas' prima facie case was sufficient "to support Rouzan's assertions that he was fired because of his race", *because Rouzan's assertions created a rebuttable presumption that the APD unlawfully discriminated against him because of his race (African American).

In sum, and for clarity, I believe that Officer Rodney J. Rouzan was a beneficiary of the "Dorner Effect" in having his firing from the APD overturned by the BCSC. I believe the Dorner Effect caused the hearing examiner to examine Rouzan's case (an African American male fired by a Los Angeles Police Department--in this case, the Airport Department) more closely than she ordinarily would have and with more care and fairness than she ordinarily would have. I believe without the Dorner Effect, the hearing examiner would have reviewed the case as just another officer firing case brought by a disgruntled black officer (who charged the department with racial discrimination only to mask his misconduct), and it is likely that Rouzan would have lost the case (like Chris Dorner did) or the hearing examiner would have ruled against him based on the Department's investigators' report and the Department's evidence. But, it is also possible that Rouzan might still have prevailed without the Dorner Effect. However, I believe that the Dorner Effect "sealed the deal" or assured the reversal of the firing by the hearing examiner.

The reason I believe that it is possible that Rouzan might have prevailed without the Dorner Effect is because I believe that Commissioner Gust was a fair hearing examiner; and with a fair adjudicator, there is always a good chance that there will be a fair outcome. Nonetheless, even fair adjudicators sometimes feel pressured to rule against a complainant in close cases because they are still employed by the government and feel some sense of loyalty to the government. So, what the Dorner Effect did was remove the pressure that Gust might have felt and allowed her to be completely fair. And, when Rouzan's case was adjudicated fairly, as evidenced by Gust's assessments or analysis, he had to prevail. *But, even though Gust was fair, she nontheless found that Rouzan's assertion that he was racially discriminated against unsupported by the record. I believe this conclusion was wrong, misguided, and a refusal to face reality.

Mr. Rouzan was fired, at least in part, because he was a Black male (like Christopher Dorner). So Mr. Rouzan was correct in asserting that he was fired because he was Black.

Thank you, Mr. Rouzan for asserting a claim of racial discrimination where it was warranted, and thank you for being a soldier in the War on Racial Discrimination in California.


A PROPOSAL FOR A "DORNER DOCTRINE"

I propose that there should be a "Dorner Doctrine", which should be implemented or instituted during all police firing cases involving African American or black males as firees or complainants. The Dorner Doctrine dictates that in every police firing case where an African American or black male is the person being fired, the decisionmaker or the decisionmaking body must examine the evidence and the entire case with "strict scrutiny" and fairness, and this strict scrutiny must be performed throughout the administrative (Board) process and the California court process (to include the Superior Court and the Appellate Courts). Further, there must be a clear and reasoned assessment and description of how the respective police department met its burden of proof if the police department prevails and the black male police officer is fired. Finally, if, during the administrative process or the Superior Court of California process, the decisionmaker determines that he or she is unsure whether an accused police officer or a critical witness for the department actually committed an identified act asserted by the Department, that "unsure" decision will be undisputed evidence that the police department did not meet its burden of proof (or *of proving that the police officer committed the act that he is accused of) by a preponderance of the evidence, *thereby preventing the black male police officer from being fired as a matter of law.