The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s order compelling arbitration after concluding that the defendants’ actions in twice seeking an immediate and total victory in court by asking the district court to reject the plaintiff’s case on the merits before they sought arbitration.
Valerie Kloosterman filed suit against her former employer, a hospital, and several of its officers. She asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and Michigan law. The defendants moved to dismiss Kloosterman’s claims with prejudice. Kloosterman responded by amending her complaint. The defendants renewed their motions to dismiss. The district court granted their renewed motion in part and denied it in part. The defendants then raised an arbitration defense for the first time based on an arbitration clause in an employment agreement Kloosterman had signed. The district court held that the arbitration agreement was enforceable and applied to the dispute. It also rejected the argument that the defendants waived their defense by delaying seeking arbitration. The district court therefore granted the defendants’ motion and compelled arbitration.
The Sixth Circuit reversed. It explained that actions that are “entirely inconsistent” with arbitration, such as seeking “an immediate and total victory” in court through a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, renders a party in default of an arbitration agreement and precludes arbitration. The defendants had acted entirely inconsistently with arbitration by twice seeking an immediate and total victory by asking the district court to dismiss Kloosterman’s claims with prejudice.
Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital, No. 24-1398 (6th Cir. Aug 27, 2025).
©2026 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.
Perspectives on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice.
Recent Posts
Editorial Contacts
Shareholder
Shareholder
Of Counsel
Shareholder
Shareholder
