United States Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it “set[s] forth two inconsistent interpretations of the very same statutory term”
• holding that “claims that [arise] as a cause of action prior to 14 the filing of the initial complaint may be added to a complaint via an amendment, as long 15 as they are administratively exhausted prior to the amendment”
• “[W]hatever the validity of the Authority’s policy rationale, it has failed to justify its atextual construction of section 7106(b)(3).”
• “[S]ection 7106(b)(1) expressly identifies certain matters that although interfering with section 7106(a) management rights, may nonetheless be negotiated at the election of the agency[.]” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “[S]ection 7106(b)(1) expressly identifies certain matters that although interfering with section 7106(a) management rights, may nonetheless be negotiated at the election of the agency[.]” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
• “[S]ection 7106(b)(1) expressly identifies certain matters that although interfering with section 7106(a) management rights, may nonetheless be negotiated at the election of the agency[.]” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).