The University filed a motion Friday in Washtenaw County Circuit Court asking to overturn the verdict or grant a new trial in the Maureen Johnson sexual harassment lawsuit against the University. The motion will be discussed in court Nov. 13.

The University is asking the former presiding judge to void the jury's verdict or grant a new trial due to a lack of sufficient evidence and failure to release certain medical records regarding Johnson's psychological state.

"The evidence submitted at trial is insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury's verdict on the hostile environment sexual harassment claim," the University's attorneys said in a brief. "Defendants have no way of knowing what discovery regarding Plaintiff's medical treatment might have yielded; Defendants were denied the opportunity to find out."

Johnson, a former Music student, filed a lawsuit in 1999 against the University and former Music Dean Paul Boylan on claims of sexual harassment, retaliation, race discrimination and discrimination. In the claim, she alleged she was sexually harassed by former Music School Prof. Pier Calabria during the 1997-1998 academic year. According to a brief written by Johnson's attorney, Miranda Massie, Calabria repeatedly made sexual advances and remarks toward Johnson. "I can't believe you're wearing this sexy leopard shirt," Calabria allegedly said to Johnson one day at her work-study job.

After complaining to Calabria, Johnson said she was demoted in his orchestra. When she went to University officials, like Dean Boylan, she said they were unresponsive to her situation. Johnson withdrew from the University in 1998. Last April, Johnson's case was tried in Washtenaw County Circuit Court. The jury awarded Johnson $250,000 in damages.

University spokeswoman Julie Peterson said this brief was filed because the University disagreed with the jury's verdict.

"We've said pretty firmly that the University does not tolerate sexual harassment and the idea of having an environment free from sexual harassment is very important to us," Peterson said. "But in this particular case, we believe the University did everything it should have done and we believe the verdict was incorrect."

But Massie said the evidence against the University was overwhelming at trial. In regards to medical records not provided, she said she gave all records of Johnson's sessions with a marital counselor but excluded notes from sessions with Johnson and her husband together, and just her husband's sessions because she did not think they were relevant for the trial, adding she originally excluded other information in Johnson's sessions, but later released them when she realized she was wrong with the disclosure.

"I gave it to (the University's attorneys) and that was that," Johnson said, adding that everything was settled until the end of the trial. "They were frantically looking for an excuse to undermine our case."

In the brief, the University said Johnson was misrepresented because the records could have given other evidence to explain her distress.