I suggest that it is obvious, if you look at it, that a person can have his dismissal adjudicated as tainted with racial prejudice AND at the same time have that dismissal upheld as valid.
Why could not people, be racially prejudiced, and yet occasionally be correct about -- oh, an employee with impulse control issues. Proof of prejudice, and I am guessing not much proof was really needed, in a southern police force (So. Cal of course), though that prejudice may well have been hidden, in reams of bland blather, but--- that does not mean the fellow was not wisely let go.
While if you are following me, the newspapers are acting like proof of prejudicial dealings is proof he should not have been fired. That makes no sense, except in the land of binary language which we all, must, inhabit.