Preston v. Wisconsin Health Fund, No. 04-2384.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPosner
Citation397 F.3d 539
PartiesJay PRESTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WISCONSIN HEALTH FUND, Bruce Trojak, and Linda Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket NumberNo. 04-2384.
Decision Date09 February 2005
397 F.3d 539
Jay PRESTON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WISCONSIN HEALTH FUND, Bruce Trojak, and Linda Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-2384.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued January 11, 2005.
Decided February 9, 2005.

Page 540

Rebecca L. Salawdeh, Urban, Taylor & Stawski, Milwaukee, WI, Charles F. Stierman (argued), Stierman, Steffens & Kuphall, Waukesha, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Naomi E. Soldon (argued), Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen, Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman, Milwaukee, WI, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before POSNER, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

POSNER, Circuit Judge.


Jay Preston, a dentist, charges that the Wisconsin Health Fund, his former employer, discriminated against him on account of his sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., when they replaced him as director of the Fund's dental clinic with Linda Hamilton (not to be confused with the female lead in the first two Terminator movies). Preston further argues that in procuring this substitution, Bruce Trojak, the Fund's chief executive officer,

Page 541

conspired with Hamilton to destroy Preston's contractual relationship with the Fund, in violation of Wisconsin's common law of tortious interference with contract. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants.

The Fund is a teamsters health and welfare fund that provides health services directly in clinics that it owns, as well as indirectly by paying for medical or dental treatment that its participants obtain outside the Fund's clinics. The Fund had been hemorrhaging money for many years when Trojak became its chief executive officer in 1998. The dental clinic alone, under Preston, its long-time director, lost $1 million the following year. Preston presented ideas for stemming the flow to Trojak in a well-written business plan (Preston has an M.B.A. as well as a dental degree), despite which Trojak fired him and replaced him with Hamilton, a much younger dentist who had no apparent credentials for the job except eagerness for it. Trojak testified at his deposition that Preston's ideas were too few and too late and that he was impressed by Hamilton's "can do" attitude. This may be true but it may also be true, as Preston claims, that Trojak favored Hamilton for personal reasons. There were rumors, although unsubstantiated, that they were having an affair. They frequently dined together and sometimes after dinner would repair to his apartment for — according to their not terribly credible deposition testimony — platonic sessions solely devoted to disinterested discussion of the future of the dental clinic, though Hamilton did acknowledge indicating at these sessions her desire to be promoted to dental director.

Trojak is no longer with the Fund, and Hamilton is no longer the dental director. But the circumstances of their departures are obscure, and both are represented in this lawsuit by the Fund's law firm.

A male executive's romantically motivated favoritism toward a female subordinate is not sex discrimination even when it disadvantages a male competitor of the woman. Such favoritism is not based on a belief that women are better workers, or otherwise deserve to be treated better, than men; indeed, it is entirely consistent with the opposite opinion. The effect on the composition of the workplace is likely to be nil, especially since the disadvantaged competitor is as likely to be another woman as a man — were Preston a woman, Trojak would still have fired her to make way for Hamilton unless Trojak was romantically entangled with both of them. Neither in purpose nor in consequence can favoritism resulting from a personal relationship be equated to sex discrimination. Schobert v. Illinois Dept. of Transportation, 304 F.3d 725, 733 (7th Cir.2002); Womack v. Runyon, 147 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir.1998) (per curiam); Becerra v. Dalton, 94 F.3d 145, 149-50 (4th Cir.1996); DeCintio v. Westchester County Medical Center, 807 F.2d 304, 308 (2d Cir.1986).

Preston tries to bolster his case by pointing to the fact that Trojak gave large raises to several women and by noting that there was even talk in the workplace of "Bruce and his harem." But he provides no details that would enable a trier of fact to infer that the raises were motivated by the recipients' sex. All we know is the amount of the raises, the number of recipients, and the sex ratio of the recipients — five women to two men. To infer discrimination we would need to know more. We would need to know the sex composition of the Fund's workforce, whether there were men who had jobs comparable to those of the five women but didn't get similar raises, and whether the raises were due to the women's being promoted to new jobs and if so whether men had a fair opportunity to compete for those promotions. There are

Page 542

some answers in the record but Preston makes nothing of them. He insists that the bare fact that more women than men got large raises, together with the favoritism shown Linda Hamilton, is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., No. 06-3436.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 3, 2007
    ...that favoring a subordinate because of a sexual relationship did not, without more, violate Title VII, see Preston v. Wis. Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir. 2005); Schobert v. Ill. Dep't of Transp., 304 F.3d 725, 733 (7th Cir.2002). The court concluded that, assuming Horn had believe......
  • Hague v. Thompson Distribution Co., No. 05-1654.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • February 7, 2006
    ...of [minorities] in the company's workforce," would satisfy the modified McDonnell Douglas standard. Preston v. Wis. Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539, 542 (7th Cir.2005). See, e.g., id., (explaining that in a case involving a male discriminating against another male in favor of a woman, such facts ......
  • Nelson v. James H. Knight DDS, P.C., No. 11–1857.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 19, 2013
    ...such a relationship and its effect on the workplace would be consistent with the opposite conclusion. See Preston v. Wis. Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir.2005) (“[Romantically motivated] favoritism is not based on a belief that women are better workers, or otherwise deserve to be tr......
  • Nowak v. International Truck and Engine Corp., No. 03 C 4971.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • December 19, 2005
    ...reverse discrimination standard." (Nowak's Resp. at 7). In support of this proposition, Nowak cites Preston v. Wisconsin Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539 (7th Cir.2005). In that case, however, the Court of Appeals merely found that "background circumstances" sufficient to satisfy the modified firs......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
29 cases
  • E.E.O.C. v. Concentra Health Services, Inc., No. 06-3436.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • August 3, 2007
    ...that favoring a subordinate because of a sexual relationship did not, without more, violate Title VII, see Preston v. Wis. Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir. 2005); Schobert v. Ill. Dep't of Transp., 304 F.3d 725, 733 (7th Cir.2002). The court concluded that, assuming Horn had believe......
  • Hague v. Thompson Distribution Co., No. 05-1654.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • February 7, 2006
    ...of [minorities] in the company's workforce," would satisfy the modified McDonnell Douglas standard. Preston v. Wis. Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539, 542 (7th Cir.2005). See, e.g., id., (explaining that in a case involving a male discriminating against another male in favor of a woman, such facts ......
  • Nelson v. James H. Knight DDS, P.C., No. 11–1857.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 19, 2013
    ...such a relationship and its effect on the workplace would be consistent with the opposite conclusion. See Preston v. Wis. Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539, 541 (7th Cir.2005) (“[Romantically motivated] favoritism is not based on a belief that women are better workers, or otherwise deserve to be tr......
  • Nowak v. International Truck and Engine Corp., No. 03 C 4971.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • December 19, 2005
    ...reverse discrimination standard." (Nowak's Resp. at 7). In support of this proposition, Nowak cites Preston v. Wisconsin Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539 (7th Cir.2005). In that case, however, the Court of Appeals merely found that "background circumstances" sufficient to satisfy the modified firs......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT