Federal Labor Relations Authority

For instance, causation under RICO is very narrowly focused.

Causation under the FLRA and the Jones Act is very broadly focused.

So my question is, how do I interpret JASTA with respect to these things, which of course will affect whether there is, under those definitions, enough evidence to get by this first step, and only this first step, of jurisdiction?

Um, yes, Judge Calabresi.

That's my problem.

And what I wanna know is how I should read JASTA with respect to that.

Do I read it in the way I would read it under RICO and under some of those cases, or do I read it as I would read it under, uh, the FLRA? And the question of that is, what does JASTA intend? This is a statutory tort, and we have to follow that statute and what it wants us to do.

And was it there to make it easy on issues like causation, or was it there instead to be the most difficult or somewhere in between?

Federal News Network's Jason Miller tells us more.

The Federal Labor Relations Authority found the Treasury Department's arguments remote in appealing a third-party arbiter's ruling around telework and return to office requirements.

Treasury appealed the findings after the arbiter concluded the agency violated the collective bargaining agreement with Bureau of Printing and Engraving Employees represented by NTEU.

FLRA denied or dismissed all of Treasury's arguments, saying the agency failed to make its case.