A Valdosta, Ga., federal judge has dismissed a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by a nurse supervisor who was disciplined for expressing her religious beliefs to a lesbian co-worker.

According to Monday's ruling in Pamela Hall v. Tift County Hospital Authority et al., Ms. Hall, a supervisor at Tift Regional Medical Center in Tifton, Ga., met staff nurse Amanda Dix in 2006 and they were friends at first.

That ended in 2009, when Ms. Hall accused Ms. Dix of having an affair with Ms. Hall's husband and Ms. Dix then told her she was a lesbian.

In 2011, Ms. Hall placed a pamphlet titled “How Should Christians Respond to 'Gay' Marriage?” in Ms. Dix's locker and a note saying she “felt led” to also leave the pamphlet.

When Ms. Dix found the pamphlet and note in front of others, including Ms. Hall, Ms. Dix threw it away and was “made angry, disgusted, humiliated and offended,” according to court records.

Ms. Hall later sent Ms. Dix an email that said in part that gay people live in sin, according to the ruling.

Ms. Dix complained to her supervisors, and Ms. Hall was put on probation for six months, removed from supervisory duties and told to refrain from discussing or using electronic media to further personal beliefs that co-workers consider discriminatory. She was moved to another department where she is a staff nurse, according to the ruling.

Ms. Hall sued in 2011, alleging religious discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; violation of her equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment; and violation of her free speech rights and her free exercise of religion rights under the First Amendment.

%%BREAK%%

However, U.S. District Court Judge Hugh Lawson on Monday granted summary judgment dismissing all charges against the defendants. The hospital's diversity policy, which contains the anti-harassment provision under which Ms. Hall was disciplined, is neutral, Judge Lawson ruled.

“The question before the court is whether plaintiff has adduced evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that her ability to practice her religion was substantially burdened,” the judge ruled. “Any burden on plaintiff's right to freely exercise her religion was imposed by the implementation of a neutral policy of general applicability and therefore does not infringe upon the First Amendment.”

While the plaintiff alleged she was punished for practicing an unacceptable brand of Christianity, the “evidence simply does not support that proposition,” the judge ruled.