Smith v. United States

construing section 14(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 633(b) (1982), which, as the Supreme Court explained in Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S. 750, 755, 99 S.Ct. 2066, 2071, 60 L.Ed.2d 609 (1979), is patterned after and virtually identical to section 706(c) | arbitrator’s award reinstating Postal Service employee who had participated in strike vacated because of statute prohibiting employment of individuals who had participated in strikes | even if evidence in question was improperly seized, its admission constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence was cumulative at best | even if police improperly seized the evidence in question, the nature of the evidence was cumulative at best and its admission constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt | lack of special addict instruction did not prejudice the defendant, because general credibility instruction and special instructions regarding accomplice, informant, and felon testimony were sufficient to alert jury to credibility problems with addict-informer’s testimony | in Title VII cases “inquiry for purposes of determining when the limitations period begins to run must center on the date when the employee has notice of the unlawful act”