A decision maker typically (i) incorporates training data to learn about the relative effectiveness of treatments, and (ii) chooses an implementation mechanism that implies an ``optimal'' predicted outcome distribution according to some target functional. Nevertheless, a fairness-aware decision maker may not be satisfied achieving said optimality at the cost of being ``unfair" against a subgroup of the population, in the sense that the outcome distribution in that subgroup deviates too strongly from the overall optimal outcome distribution. We study a framework that allows the decision maker to regularize such deviations, while allowing for a wide range of target functionals and fairness measures to be employed. We establish regret and consistency guarantees for empirical success policies with (possibly) data-driven preference parameters, and provide numerical results. Furthermore, we briefly illustrate the methods in two empirical settings.