Metoyer

MEMORANDUM *

In a separately published opinion in this case, we address Metoyer’s federal claims for discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“ § 1981”). We AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the district court’s grant of summary judgment in the Guild’s favor. Here, we address the Guild’s claim that Metoyer’s employment contract was void and the dismissal of Metoyer’s state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”). We also address Metoyer’s appeal from the district court’s denial of her motion for reconsideration and motion to re-tax costs.

I. Metoyer’s Employment Contract Is Not Void Under 29 U.S.C. § 504 .

The Guild contends that Metoyer § 1981 claims fail because the underlying employment contract was void under 29 U.S.C. § 504 . See Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1137 (9th Cir.2000) (holding denial of entry into a void contract not cognizable under § 1981).

Under section 504 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (“ § 504”), persons convicted of crimes such as “robbery, bribery, extortion, embezzlement, grand larceny, burglary, [or] arson,” cannot lawfully hold certain positions in a labor union. 29…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I join the majority’s memorandum disposition except as to Part Ill.b, which addresses the district court’s denial of Metoyer’s motion to re-tax Defendant’s bill of $24,675 in litigation costs. The majority holds this issue is moot on appeal because the majority reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Metoyer’s federal and state law discrimination and retaliation claims. Because I would affirm the district court’s summary judgment, I would reach the merits of Metoyer’s appeal from the district court’s denial of her motion to re-tax costs.