"Battenfield can not make it something it isnot simply be putting a private, personal spin onit," Ryan wrote.

Ryan also argued that the remark did not havethe purpose of interfering with Battenfield's workperformance by creating a hostile or intimidatingwork environment.

Finally, the attorney wrote that Battenfield'sillness could not be attributed to what happenedon May 14 or in the days afterwards. He cited herown admission that she had been under considerablestress for the first five months of 1991.

"it's is obvious that the physical andemotional problems she suffered in the spring andsummer of 1991-- including marital stress--hadbegun prior to May 14 and were not caused byanything that happened then or thereafter,"Rayan's memorandum says.

Appeal

Adler said yesterday that his client wasconsidering an appeal.

He said he felt Battenfield was hurt by thebifurcation of the trial. This, he said, limitedthe evidence he could provide to the jury.

"We feel if the jury had had the whole picture,they would have found an injury, and would havebeen more likely to award damages," Adler said.

In particular, Adler said he wanted the jury tohear the testimony of Janis Lawrence, a formerOstrowski advisee. Lawrence testified thatOstrowski made an unwanted advance toward her inWashington in late 1990 after she had finished herthesis.

Adler also said he believes Harvard had a dutyto investigate.

"Harvard's personnel manual clearly indicatesthat if there is a clam of sexual harassment, aworker can tell any superior and they willinvestigate thoroughly and quickly, Alder said."Harvard definitely didn't do that.