An employer that gives preferential treatment toward a supervisor’s sexual or romantic partner does not thereby discriminate on the basis of sex against other employees of the same sex as the paramour because it doesn’t satisfy Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) 140 S. Ct. 1731’s test–would employer have acted differently if employee was of the opposite sex.  As used in Title VII, sex does not mean sexual activity but rather gender.  Summary judgment was also properly granted on the employee’s retaliation claim since the employee presented no evidence showing a causal connection between the claimed protected activity and the employer’s decision to terminate employment.