The Boston jury this spring handed down its decision on the seven-year-old discrimination suit of a former Facilities Maintenance worker--Harvard was guilty of sexual discrimination. Neither side was happy with the outcome.

The jury awarded Charlotte Walters $75,000 for emotional distress suffered because the University failed to adequately discipline male workers who harassed her at the workplace. The six-member panel concluded that Harvard's inaction was based on gender discrimination.

But Judge W. Arthur Garrity Jr. dismissed the five other charges which Walters had brought against the University and rejected Walters' wide interpretation of gender discrimination. Without a ruling from Garrity, Walters could not win the wide-spread changes in facilities Maintenance hiring and disciplining practices that she had asked for.

Walters was the second female Facilities Maintenance worker at Harvard when she was hired in 1979. After Walters was promoted to a supervisory position, she complained to the University that one of her co-workers had threatened her and threw a firecracker at her head.

Before courtroom testimony had been completed this spring, Judge Garrity dismissed Walters' charges against the two supervisors--to whom she had initially complained--ruling that the supervisors' conduct "does not rise to the level of outrageous and extreme conduct which is required for the liability of individuals."

Before the jury reached its decision, Garrity dismissed two of the other charges, saying that the University did not deliberately make working conditions intolerable for Walters or violate state civil rights laws in responding to her complaint.

After two days of deliberation, however, the jury ruled that Harvard broke its contract with Walters by not treating her the same as men. Walters, who had asked for $300,000 in compensation for lost wages and emotional distress, was awarded $75,000.

Judge Garrity, who later dismissed all other remaining charges against the University, upheld the jury's verdict earlier this month. But because separate decisions were reached by the judge and the jury, both sides of the case are appealing the results.

Walters is appealing the judge's dismissal of the five additional charges, and Harvard has said it will appeal the jury decision on the grounds that insufficient evidence was provided to prove discrimination.

Harvard attorney Allan A. Ryan said shortly after the contradictory verdicts were announced: "We have won five-sixths of the case. The judge ruled unequivocably that Harvard had not discriminated against Charlotte Walters."

Walters and her attorney said they think the latest development shows that Garrity might understand the definition of sexual discrimination which they are using.

"I feel that the jury understood it, and with Judge Garrity's most recent decision that he's beginning to understand it too," said Walters, who has said throughout the trial that her goal throughout the proceedings has been to make people understand that sexual discrimination does not have to be sexual in nature.

"We fully expect that the court of appeals will overturn the judge's decision and we hope to set a precedent that way," said Walters' attorney Wendy Kaplan.