a deprivation of a constitutional right, as required for a § 1983 civil rights conspiracy. Id. at 845. 13 . My research has uncovered a smattering of other cases, from our own circuit and others, applying harmless error analysis to a directed verdict. Like Earle, these decisions have found harmless error where the jury verdict “necessarily defeats the claim” on which a directed verdict was incorrectly granted. Goulet, 512 F.3d at 43; see id. at 42-43 (concluding that any error in directed verdict for employer on plaintiffs hybrid Labor Management Relations Act § 301 claim was harmless, where the jury’s ultimate rejection of plaintiff's § 301 claim against union was "fatal” to claim against employer); see also, e.g., Uphoff Figueroa v. Alejandro, 597 F.3d 423, 433 (1st Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); Snyder v. Ag Trucking, Inc., 57 F.3d 484, 491
holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim holding court did not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs retaliation claim where plaintiff did not check the retaliation box or describe anything that indicates such a claim in the eeoc complaint holding that directing a verdict for employer on claim for willful violation of adea was harmless error because given jurys rejection of underlying adea claim it could noi have found willful violation of adea holding that transit authority director was entitled to immunity despite jury verdict for plaintiffs because law was not clearly established at the time that plaintiffs activities were constitutionally protected from employer retaliation holding that even if court erred in directing verdict for employer on plaintiffs state law retaliation claim it was harmless given the jurys finding for employer on identical federal law retaliation claim