Schafer

MEMORANDUM **

Richard and Karen Schafer (Schafer) appeal from the district court’s summary *953 judgment for Sea-Land Service, Inc., et al. (Sea-Land). The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review summary judgment de novo. Estate of Shockley v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 130 F.3d 403 , 405 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm.

Schafer does not dispute that he failed to follow the collective bargaining agreement’s grievance procedure as to his claim for “wrongful and discriminatory termination.” See Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 219-21 , 105 S.Ct. 1904 , 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985) (recognizing that failure to follow established grievance procedures for tort claims results in the dismissal of such claims). Schafer argues that he was not required to follow such procedures because he was “emotionally disabled” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD). However, Schafer failed to bring a claim under the ADA or the WLAD. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 , 96 S.Ct. 2868 , 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (“It is the general rule, of course, that a federal…