Stutler v. T.K. Contructors

In Stutler v. T.K. Contructors, 448 F.3d 343 (6th Cir. 2006), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit explained that its prior opinions in Morrison and Cooper, and the Supreme Court's decision in Randolph, declined to enforce arbitration provisions only because the underlying claim was based on federal statute, and thus federally statutorily created or protected rights were at stake.

In an opinion written by the leading conservative jurist Alice M. Batchelder, the court upheld the enforceability of the following arbitration provision and reversed a decision by a district court that had stayed the proceeding:

Any claims or disputes arising out of this contract or the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Construction Industry Arbitration Rules of [the] American Arbitration Association unless both parties mutually agree otherwise.

Stutler v. T.K. Constructors, 448 F.3d 343, 344 (6th Cir. 2006).

The often-argued basis for refusing to enforce arbitration clauses because of prohibitive costs was limited to situations where important rights created or protected by federal civil rights legislation should not be undermined by agreements that made vindication of those rights unlikely due to costs. Where no federally protected interest is at stake, arbitration agreements are enforceable subject to state contract defenses.