In Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (per curiam), the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff could challenge a legislative or regulatory action on the basis that she was denied the equal protection of the laws as a class of one through purely arbitrary government action. ?Most circuits had held the theory could be invoked by public employees who claimed that they were treated differently?? for?? irrational?? reasons.??? ?The?? Ninth Circuit had held 2-1 that the class of one theory did not?? apply?? in?? the?? employment?? context.???? ?The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed 6-3. Justice ?Roberts? reasoned ?that ??unique considerations? applicable? when? the? government acts as employer as opposed to sovereign? supported different rules in the regulatory and the employment ?arenas.?? ?The ?Court? essentially? held that employment decisions were too subjective, discretionary and hard to quantify to be held to the standard of rationality. Therefore, the class of one theory was ?a poor fit in the public employment context.? ?The majority reasoned that acceptance of the class of one theory would preclude government employment at will, even though most states do not have employment at will. ?The majority feared that ?governments will be forced to defend a multitude ?of? ?such ?claims.???? Justices ?Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg dissented. ?They accused the majority? ?of?? confusing?? the?? right? ?to? ?exercise discretion and the right to act arbitrarily, and found no factual support for the majority?s ?opening the floodgates? concerns. ?Engquist v. Oregon Dep?t of Agriculure, 128 S. Ct. 2146 (2008).