With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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>). Under section 504 of the Labor-Management

A: holding claim is cognizable
B: holding that retaliation claims are not cognizable under 42 usc  1981
C: holding that a claim of retaliation for filing eeoc charges is cognizable under  1981
D: holding denial of entry into a void contract not cognizable under  1981
D.