Stevens v. Sodexo, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that the plaintiff must plead more than mere words stating that he was a \contract full-time employee\
• dismissing claims of “negligent hiring, supervision, and retention” because “bare, conclusory assertions, in the form of unenlightening legal-speak, that Sodexo ‘knew or should have known’ are insufficient to survive Sodexo’s Motion to Dismiss”
• dismissing claims of “negligent hiring, supervision, and retention” because “bare, conclusory assertions, in the form of unenlightening legal-speak, that Sodexo ‘knew or should have known’ are insufficient to survive Sodexo’s Motion to Dismiss”
• The public-policy exception must rest on “a statute or regulation that does not provide its own remedy.”
• where another employee cashed checks in plaintiff’s name, dismissing claim for negligently failing to safeguard plaintiff’s identity, as plaintiff never identified any basis for defendant’s purported duty

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).