Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in Title VII action alleging that defendant changed plaintiff’s work schedule and denied him overtime opportunities in retaliation for filing discrimination claims that were ultimately settled. Defendant explained that changes in work schedule and denial of overtime were necessary to comply with settlement of sexual harassment claim made by co-worker who accused plaintiff of misconduct. While record showed that plaintiff had received changes to his work schedule shortly after plaintiff had settled his own claims against defendant, plaintiff failed to show that he was meeting plaintiff’s legitimate employment expectations where management had honest belief that plaintiff had been harassing co-worker that led to changes in plaintiff's schedule. Fact that defendant did not interview plaintiff during its investigation of sexual harassment claims did not require different result.