Last week's federal court decision did not conclude a Facilities Maintenance worker's seven-year-old discrimination suit against Harvard, as lawyers for both sides said yesterday they would seek fresh verdicts in the case.

Late last month, Federal Judge W. Arthur Garrity and a six-member jury delivered disparate verdicts on former Harvard employee Charlotte Walters' half-dozen charges, which she has pursued since she left the University seven years ago.

While the jury awarded Walters $75,000 in damages, Garrity dismissed the five other charges against the University and two supervisors.

"We have won five-sixths of the case," Harvard attorney Allan A. Ryan, Jr., said yesterday. "The judge ruled unequivocably that Harvard had not discriminated against Charlotte Walters."

Stating that "the evidence simply doesn't support" the jury's verdict, Ryan said he would file a motion later this week asking Judge Garrity to set aside the jury's decision.

Under federal law, a judge may only throw out the jury's verdict if "no evidence [has been presented] from which a rational jury could have concluded a breach of contract," Ryan said. While he would not second-guess the judge, Ryan said there was a "reasonably good chance" that Garrity would overturn the jury's verdict when he examines Harvard's motion next month.

Wendy Kaplan, one of Walters' attorneys, said yesterday she would appeal Judge Garrity's five rulings against her client.

Kaplan said she considered it necessary for the federal appelate court to overturn Garrity's rulings, in order to make it clear that anti-discrimination laws cover gender discrimination as well as overt sexual harassment.

"Judge Garrity decided that the type of harassment [Walters experienced] was not actionable under the Civil Rights Act," Kaplan said. "We plan to appeal the judge's verdict."

Still, Kaplan said she was very pleased with the jury's decision. "There is nothing more vindicating than a jury's verdict [in your favor]," Kaplan said.

Walters claims that two Facilities Maintenance supervisors caused her emotional distress through "insensitive" behavior and lenient handling of a co-worker who harassed her.

She also claimed the University violated the Massachussetts Civil Rights Act, the Federal Civil Rights Act and Chapter 151b of the state code, which prohibits sex discrimination, by inadequately handling her complaints.

Finally, Walters charged the University with breach of contract, citing a clause in her union's collective bargaining agreement in which Harvard pledged not to discriminate on the basis of sex.

This last claim was the only one before the jury, which awarded Walters $75,000 in compensation for emotional and mental distress.

Judge Garrity dismissed the other five charges.Stating that "Harvard and its supervisors had donetheir level best to assist the plaintiff through avery difficult period in her life," Garrityconcluded that Harvard's treatment of Walters didnot violate any state or federalanti-discrimination law.

Two psychiatrists who testified on Walters'behalf in the case told the jury that Walters leftHarvard with severe emotional and mental strains. Ryanargued that Walters' emotional strains were causedby a separation from her longtime boyfriend, andnot by her supervisors' negligence.

"Harvard did what it could to assist [Walters]in this difficult period. The supervisors treatedeverybody, including Charlotte Walters, withfairness. Beyond that, there is nothing much thelaw can do," Ryan said.Attorney WENDY KAPLAN and CHARLOTTE WALTERS,who was awarded $75,000 in a sex discriminationsuit against the University.