1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Court Upholds AAA Injunction Based on Implied-in-Fact Contract

Court Upholds AAA Injunction Based on Implied-in-Fact Contract

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.24.18

On July 30, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a decision in Air Center Helicopters Inc. v. Starlite Investments Ireland Ltd et al. (Case No. 18-599), upholding a temporary injunction issued by the American Arbitration Association that granted Defendant Starlite Aviation Group (a C&M client) the right to continue performing helicopter services in support of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. In seeking to vacate the AAA’s Injunction Order, Plaintiff argued that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by granting Defendant relief under an implied-in-fact contract theory, and contemporaneously sought a preliminary injunction preventing Defendant from enforcing the AAA Injunction Order (which the parties briefed on an expedited basis). The Court rejected Plaintiff’s arguments and denied both motions, holding that (i) “[Plaintiff] cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits regarding its petition,” such that “[Plaintiff]’s motion for preliminary injunction must necessarily be denied;” (ii) Plaintiff had “not met its high burden to show that the arbitrator imperfectly executed or exceeded his powers” in the AAA Injunction Order, and thus Plaintiff was not entitled to vacatur. The Court noted that its rulings were subject to a later determination as to whether the Court had jurisdiction to review the AAA Injunction Order.

On August 15, the Court ruled that “it did have jurisdiction to deny Plaintiff’s motions to vacate and for preliminary injunction,” and granted Defendant’s cross motion to confirm the AAA Injunction Order, reinforcing Defendant’s right to perform under its implied-in-fact contract.

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...