Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in Title VII action alleging that plaintiff was terminated from his assembly line position on account of his national origin and on fact that he had previously complained of discrimination, after defendant had conducted internal investigation that plaintiff had sexually harassed co-worker and had otherwise acted aggressively against other co-workers. Plaintiff had failed to establish that any other co-worker, who had been accused of similar sex-based misconduct, was treated more favorably. Fact that plaintiff believed that his misconduct was mere teasing that did not amount to actionable sexual harassment did not require different result since defendant can discipline employees on misconduct that is not actionable sexual harassment. Moreover, plaintiff failed to show that his protest of discrimination that occurred twelve months prior to his termination was causally related to his termination.