laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.” Id. Contrary to Shelley, the majority holds that equality can be achieved “through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.” Id. As there is no reason to depart from the plain meaning of § 1981 or the framework espoused in Shelley, I would follow Supreme Court precedent by considering the rights of individuals, not of groups. Consequently, I cannot concur in the majority’s modification of the second Weber and Johnson factor. 3. Attaining a Balance Finally, the majority reworks the third Weber and Johnson factor, which requires that an affirmative action plan be “intended to attain a balanced work force, not to maintain one.” Johnson, 480 U.S. at 639, 107 S.Ct. 1442; accord Weber, 443 U.S. at 208, 99 S.Ct. 2721 (<HOLDING>). Though the Supreme Court has not required
holding that plan administrator of an erisa health plan did not have to anticipate the confusion of a plan participant holding that affirmative action plans by public employers should be subjected to an unmodified title vii standard and evaluating a california highway patrol affirmative action program under that standard holding an affirmative action plan should be a temporary measure    not intended to maintain racial balance but simply to eliminate a manifest racial imbalance holding nonexhaustion to be an affirmative defense holding affirmative action plan did not unnecessarily trammel interests of white employees when plan was tailored simply to eliminate a man ifest racial imbalance