Lebourgeois

MEMORANDUM *

Ezra LeBourgeois appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claim for race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Wash. Rev.Code § 49.60. The district court entered summary judgment after determining that LeBourgeois’s claims were contractually time-barred by the six-month limitation on actions provided in Rebecca Irene Fisheries’s (“RIF”) Crew Member Employment Contract (“Agreement”), which LeBourgeois signed. The district court also dismissed LeBourgeois’s state law claim based on the Agreement’s provision that “all disputes of whatever nature arising out of [the] employment relationship” would be governed by federal maritime law “and shall not be enlarged, supplemented or modified by the laws of any state or local jurisdiction.” We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, see Manatt v. Bank of America, 339 F.3d 792, 796 (9th Cir.2003), and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

As a seaman, LeBourgeois enjoys special protection under maritime law. Orsini v. O/S SEABROOKE O.N., 247 F.3d 953, 964 (9th Cir.2001) (“In admiralty, law imposes a restraint on what normally on *159 land might be viewed as hard bargaining^ between…

dissenting.

Even if the majority were right (which I doubt) that, in contrast to those sentences in the Agreement which refer to the “agreement” and to the “employment relationship,” the six-month limitation provision is narrower and refers only to the former term, I would still conclude that the six-month limitation provision applies to LeBourgeois’ section 1981 claim.

Section 1981 protects the right to make and enforce contracts, which includes “the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (b). In contrast to other statutory rights, such as those created by Title VII or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a section 1981 claim is premised on discriminatory interference with a contractual relationship. See, e.g., Perry v. Woodward, 199 F.3d 1126, 1132 (10th Cir.1999) (“Even as amended, section 1981 continues to center on the protection of contractual rights.”).

The majority reasons that because a contractual relationship need not be reduced to writing, LeBourgeois’ section 1981 is not necessarily premised on — and is instead…