PORTLAND – A Muslim man from Portland who walked away empty-handed after a federal jury found him to be a victim of illegal harassment in the workplace is headed back to court in an attempt to win monetary damages.

Arguments will be presented Thursday in the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston in the case of Abdul Azimi, a former employee of Jordan’s Meats who arrived in the United States from Afghanistan during the 1980s.

After a six-day civil rights trial last year, the jury found that harassment from co-workers created a work environment that “was hostile to his race, religion or ethnic origin.” Jurors also concluded that because Azimi was not hurt by the conduct, the company did not have to pay damages.

The company’s lawyer, Lawrence Winger, said the verdict reflected the fact that Azimi lost no wages, raises or promotions while employed by Jordan’s and never sought medical treatment because of the harassment.

Azimi’s trial lawyer said the verdict was inconsistent.

“It doesn’t make sense, what the jury did,” said John Lemieux. “In my mind, one of two things happened: There was some element of prejudice or they were simply confused.”

The Maine Civil Liberties Union has joined in Azimi’s appeal, filing a brief supporting his demands.

“It’s quite disturbing, really,” said Zachary Heiden, staff attorney for the MCLU. “He was subject to ridicule, mistreatment and physical intimidation. If he was harassed to this extent, he was damaged.”

Azimi, who filed a complaint with the Maine Human Rights Commission in 2001, was fired for poor attendance while the case was pending. Lemieux said the ethnic and religious harassment became more intense after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The appeal challenges Judge Gene Carter’s pretrial decision that barred Azimi from suing Jordan’s for his dismissal. It also raises questions about decisions that prevented the jury from considering punitive damages against Jordan’s even though it decided that no compensatory damages were warranted.

The appeal is likely to focus, however, on whether it is possible for the jury to find that Azimi had been harassed but not damaged.

Winger said it is, and there are other cases involving similar verdicts.

“There is substantial evidence that Mr. Azimi was not damaged in any way,” he said. “The jury was well within its rights to find that while Mr. Azimi was discriminated against, he was not caused any damages.”

Lemieux said the appeals court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences.

“The issues here are important to Mr. Azimi, but they are also important to all Americans as well,” he said. “Probably because of 9/11, America has been tested in regards to how people are going to be treated. This case presents a lot of issues that I think are important.”