Fairness studies of algorithmic decision-making systems often simplify complex decision processes, such as bail or lending decisions, into binary classification tasks (e.g., approve or not approve). However, these approaches overlook that such decisions are not inherently binary; they also involve non-binary treatment decisions (e.g., loan or bail terms) that can influence the downstream outcomes (e.g., loan repayment or reoffending). We argue that treatment decisions are integral to the decision-making process and, therefore, should be central to fairness analyses. Consequently, we propose a causal framework that extends and complements existing fairness notions by explicitly distinguishing between decision-subjects’ covariates and the treatment decisions. Our framework leverages path-specific counterfactual reasoning to: (i) measure treatment disparity and its downstream effects in historical data; and (ii) mitigate the impact of past unfair treatment decisions when automating decision-making. We use our framework to empirically analyze four widely used loan approval datasets to reveal potential disparity in non-binary treatment decisions and their discriminatory impact on outcomes, highlighting the need to incorporate treatment decisions in fairness assessments. Finally, by intervening in treatment decisions, we show that our framework effectively mitigates treatment discrimination from historical loan approval data to ensure fair risk score estimation and (non-binary) decision-making processes that benefit all stakeholders.