This paper discusses legal implications for employment as a result of Bakke v. Regents of University of California, a reverse discrimination case that ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It refers to Weber v. Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation, a case that may turn out to be more significant than Bakke because it involves jobs, money, and who gets paid. The paper also discusses the establishment of quotas, the signing of consent decrees, and the use of race as a basis for discrimination. The author concludes that any future affirmative action plans should indicate the desirability of a balanced faculty and consider background, academic record, and geographical origin, not just race. Also, the language of goals, timetables, and quotas should be used in a more general sense to indicate improving racial balance. (Author/LD)