Metoyer

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

A. The Hiring Process

In March 1998, Metoyer applied for employment with the Guild listing the position she desired as “Affirmative Action 1 In a separate memorandum disposition, we affirm the district court’s (1) denial of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, and (2) denial of plain- tiff’s motion to re-tax costs. We also dispose of defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s employment contract was void and, therefore, as a matter of law cannot sustain plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims. 2 In our statement of the facts, we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Metoyer. See, e.g., Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018, 1022 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006). METOYER v. SCREEN ACTORS GUILD 13145 Director.” At that time, the Guild did not have an “Affirma- tive Action Director” position; it had two “Executive Admin- istrator of Affirmative Action” positions, one in New York City and one in Hollywood.3 Metoyer was contacted by Kath- ryn Nirschl (“Nirschl”), the Guild’s Executive Administrator of Human Resources and invited to interview. Nirschl informed Metoyer that although the title of the position was that of…