When University of Michigan Health-West couldn’t get Valerie Kloosterman’s lawsuit dismissed, it tried to force her into arbitration, but a three-judge panel called foul on its tactics and ruled that her case can now go forward and be heard on the merits.
[Update] The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled that Valerie Kloosterman, a physician assistant who claimed she was illegally terminated from her job at University of Michigan Health-West because of her Christian beliefs, can take her lawsuit to trial rather than be forced into arbitration.
Prior to this ruling, a district court had declined to grant the hospital’s many motions to have Kloosterman’s claims summarily dismissed, but when it then asked for the case to be moved into arbitration, the district court agreed.
Kloosterman’s attorneys with First Liberty Institute and Clement & Murphy appealed that decision.
In its ruling, a three-judge panel for the Sixth Circuit not only reversed the district court unanimously, but it also called foul, noting that “only after a year of litigation and after the defendants got a preview of how the merits might progress in court” did the hospital seek to arbitrate.
Citing the Seventh Circuit’s 1995 ruling in Cabinetree of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Inc., Judge Eric E. Murphy wrote that “defendants may not play ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ by keeping arbitration in reserve just in case a court doesn’t reject the entire case at the start.”
The court then ruled,
“We conclude that this request [for arbitration] came too late, primarily because the defendant sought to avoid arbitration altogether by asking for a complete judicial victory. Specifically, we hold that the defendants lost their right to arbitrate under the Federal Arbitration Act because their conduct would put them ‘in default in proceeding with [their requested] arbitration.’”
Kayla Toney, counsel at First Liberty, praised the ruling, saying,
“Today’s decision is a reckoning for institutions that discriminate and punish caring people of faith like Valerie Kloosterman. It was intolerant of University of Michigan Health to fire Valerie because of her religious beliefs, and now the Sixth Circuit has recognized that they cannot avoid accountability by hiding the case in arbitration.”
Kloosterman had worked at the health system for nearly two decades. Court records describe her as having “exemplary performance reviews,” a positive reputation with patients, and providing equal care to all, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The dispute began when she asked for a religious accommodation from making affirming statements that conflicted with her Christian convictions and her professional judgment.
According to filings, a diversity representative at UM Health-West told Kloosterman she was “evil,” blamed her for suicides linked to gender dysphoria, and said she could not bring her Bible or religious beliefs to the workplace. In August 2021, she was fired.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision strengthens legal protections for employees seeking to bring constitutional claims in open court rather than private arbitration. Advocates say it affirms that faith-based employees cannot be sidelined simply for holding religious views.
The case comes at a time when University of Michigan Health is reexamining some of its own progressive policies. The hospital system recently announced that it would no longer provide gender-transition procedures for patients under the age of 19. However, UM Health-West continues to tout itself as an “LGBTQ Healthcare Equality Top Performer” and for its dedication to DEI and “diversity trainings” on such topics as preferred gender pronouns and racial/ethnic distinctions.
For Kloosterman, the ruling now gives her the chance to seek vindication in district court — and possible reinstatement. Supporters argue that her fight is part of a larger cultural and legal battle between religious liberty and medical institutions embracing radical gender ideology.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
{Published February 18, 2025} Valerie Kloosterman, a physician’s assistant who was fired by the University of Michigan Health System (UMHW) after she requested a religious accommodation to refrain from using pronouns that conflict with biological sex and from referring patients for gender transition treatments, had her case heard earlier this month before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
For 17 years, Kloosterman dedicated herself to Michigan Health, continuing a family legacy as the third generation to serve in her local healthcare system.
She was deeply committed to providing the highest quality care to all patients, treating everyone with professionalism and respect, regardless of their sexual orientation or stated gender identity. Her dedication was recognized through outstanding performance reviews, with supervisors describing her as professional and a pleasure to work with.
When the University of Michigan took over the rural health center where she worked in 2021, they required all staff to affirm patients who believed that they had a different gender identity than their biological sex.
As part of this, Kloosterman told Fox News that she was required to complete a diversity training module that mandated her to affirm statements about sexual orientation and gender identity that conflicted with her Christian faith.
“Two of those questions specifically stated that gender was fluid. I couldn’t put, ‘No, I don’t believe that, as we were made in the image of God, it’s something that God designed us to be. It’s not something that we’re assigned with at birth.’ But I couldn’t put, ‘No.’ It wouldn’t let me complete the mandatory survey, and they had already stated you would be terminated if you didn’t fill it out,” she said.
She also refused to use pronouns that conflicted with biological reality and for declining to refer patients for transgender medical procedures — both decisions rooted in her deeply held Christian faith and medical judgment. She then asked for a religious exemption to the requirements.
Despite her exemplary record as a healthcare professional, a Michigan Health representative with no medical background berated Kloosterman, calling her “evil” and a “liar” and openly disparaging her religious beliefs. She was even blamed for suicides related to gender dysphoria.
Less than a month later, she was fired. Kloosterman was devastated, tearfully explaining that “I wanted to work there my entire career.”
In response, First Liberty Institute filed a lawsuit in October 2022 against Michigan Health on her behalf, arguing that the University of Michigan had violated her First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and free speech and that health officials had engaged in religious discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Although a federal judge found in favor of Kloosterman, allowing her lawsuit to proceed, Michigan Health appealed the case by invoking its right to use arbitration as a way to fight against Kloosterman. As a result, the case has continued to wind itself through the courts and ended up before the Sixth Circuit appeals court in early February.
“It is intolerant and unconstitutional for employers to demand that medical professionals like Valerie abandon their religious beliefs in order to remain employed,” said Roger Byron, senior counsel for First Liberty. “The University of Michigan Health-West system is sending a message that religious health care workers are not welcome and need not apply. We hope Michigan Health is held accountable for its discrimination.”
The right to the free exercise of faith is a foundational principle in the United States, protected by the First Amendment and federal laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Despite these freedoms, conflicts between religious convictions and woke workplace policies are becoming more frequent.
Medical professionals like Kloosterman should never be forced to compromise their religious beliefs to keep their jobs. She has the right to return to work without violating her deeply held convictions, allowing her to continue serving her patients and community with integrity.
Workplace religious discrimination is not only unjust but also illegal. Federal law requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs unless it creates an undue hardship on the business. In this case, granting Kloosterman an accommodation would not have hindered patient care, yet she was still penalized for her faith.
No American should be forced to choose between their faith and their career. America’s laws exist to protect religious liberty, ensuring that individuals are not punished for living according to their beliefs. A victory for Kloosterman would be a victory for all who face discrimination for their faith in the workplace, reinforcing the fundamental freedoms upon which this nation was built.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
