Jay Preston v. Wisconsin Health Fund, Bruce Trojak, and Linda Hamilton
95 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 234, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 2040, 397 F.3d 539 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An adverse employment action motivated by a supervisor's romantic favoritism toward another employee is not sex discrimination under Title VII. Furthermore, for an at-will employee to sustain a tortious interference with contract claim against a corporate officer, the plaintiff must prove both that the employer derived no benefit from the officer's act and that the act was independently tortious.
Facts:
- Jay Preston, a dentist, was the long-time director of the Wisconsin Health Fund's dental clinic.
- The Fund was experiencing major financial problems, and the dental clinic under Preston's leadership lost $1 million in a single year.
- Bruce Trojak was hired as the Fund's chief executive officer to address the financial issues.
- Preston presented a business plan to Trojak aimed at stemming the clinic's financial losses.
- Trojak frequently dined with Linda Hamilton, another dentist at the clinic, and they often met at his apartment, leading to rumors of a romantic affair.
- During these meetings, Hamilton expressed her desire to be promoted to dental director.
- Trojak fired Preston from his position as director.
- Trojak immediately appointed Hamilton as Preston's replacement.
Procedural Posture:
- Jay Preston filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court against the Wisconsin Health Fund, Bruce Trojak, and Linda Hamilton.
- The complaint alleged sex discrimination in violation of Title VII and tortious interference with contract under Wisconsin common law.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all of Preston's claims.
- Preston (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a supervisor's decision to replace a male employee with a female employee, motivated by a personal romantic relationship with the female employee, constitute sex discrimination under Title VII or tortious interference with the male employee's at-will employment contract under Wisconsin law?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
No. An employer's favoritism toward a romantic partner does not constitute sex discrimination, nor does it automatically support a claim for tortious interference. Regarding the Title VII claim, romantically motivated favoritism is not based on a belief that one gender is superior to another; it is based on a personal relationship. The disadvantaged competitor could just as easily have been another woman. This type of favoritism, therefore, cannot be equated to sex discrimination in either its purpose or its effect. Regarding the tortious interference claim, allowing at-will employees to sue corporate officers over termination decisions without a high bar would effectively convert at-will employment into for-cause employment. To state a valid claim, a plaintiff must show the officer acted with an improper motive, which requires proving two elements: that the employer did not benefit from the officer's action, and that the action was independently tortious (e.g., fraudulent or defamatory). Preston failed to provide evidence for either element, as the company was losing money under his leadership and ratified his discharge, and there was no evidence of an independent tort.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle known as the 'paramour preference' exception, clarifying that Title VII protects against discrimination based on a protected class (like sex), not favoritism based on a personal romantic relationship. By distinguishing between class-based animus and personal favoritism, the court narrows the scope of actionable claims under Title VII. Furthermore, the opinion establishes a stringent two-part test for tortious interference claims by at-will employees against corporate officers in this jurisdiction, thereby protecting managerial discretion and reinforcing the core principles of the employment-at-will doctrine.
