plaintiffs on their retaliation claims based on the evidence presented at the first trial, and therefore the directed verdict was properly granted. Defendants contended, inter alia, that there was no evidence Ciampa or Cachop 0th Cir.1990) (finding any error in failing to submit § 1983 claim to jury harmless, given jury's conclusion that no defendants violated plaintiff's constitutional rights by use of excessive force); Mello v. K-Mart Corp., 792 F.2d 1228, 1231 (1st Cir.1986) (concluding that error in directing verdict for manufacturer was harmless where jury ultimately rejected product liability claims against vendor, and in reaching that verdict jury necessarily had to find that there was no manufacturing defect); Cenco Inc. v. Seidman & Seidman, 686 F.2d 449, 453 (7th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). 14 . The Seventh Amendment provides: “In
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 any error in directing verdict for defendant on plaintiffs claim for conspiracy to defraud was harmless given that jury ultimately rejected underlying fraud claim holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error 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 holding that plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on claim of breach of fiduciary duty where underlying claim was a common law negligence action