to support the manifest imbalance factor included the traditional segregated job category requirement in their statement of the test. See Johnson, 480 U.S. at 631, 107 S.Ct. 1442; Weber, 443 U.S. at 204, 99 S.Ct. 2721; Higgins v. City of Vallejo, 823 F.2d 351, 356 (9th Cir.1987). Rudebusch gives no indication that it intentionally excluded this aspect of the requirement, and the defendant did not argue that this requirement had no 5, 837 (9th Cir.1996) (discussing an affirmative action program at the Department of Labor and stating that the test of its validity is an unmodified Title VII standard). Indeed, we have also ruled in multiple Title VII cases involving affirmative action practices at educational institutions, and we have never even suggested that . 2804, 37 L.Ed.2d 723 (1973) (<HOLDING>); see also Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S.
holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment holding ijnvidious private discrimination may be characterized as a form of exercising freedom of association protected by the first amendment but it has never been accorded affirmative constitutional protections holding that it is clearly established that retaliation against private citizens for exercising their first amendment rights is actionable holding that dating is a type of association protected by the first amendment holding that a nocontact order did not violate the right to freedom of association