526 N.E.2d 1309 (explaining that “[a]n employee’s past conviction of larceny by check would not make the employer liable, on the basis of the doctrine of negligent hiring or negligent retention, for the employee’s subsequent rape of a customer”). For all of these reasons, Doe has failed to plead a basis upon which the Court can find that Medeiros’ alleged misconduct was foreseeable to Ellis for the purposes of negligent hiring claim. See e.g., Vicarelli v. Bus. Int’l, Inc., 973 F.Supp. 241, 246 (D.Mass.1997) (dismissing claim for negligent hiring, retention and supervision without prejudice where plaintiff did not allege that employer “knew or should have known of any propensity on the part of [employee] for sexual harassment”); Saldivar v. Pridgen, 91 F.Supp.3d 134, 138 (D.Mass.2015) (<HOLDING>). Thus, to the extent that Count VIII alleges a
holding that the plaintiff did not establish a waiver where the defendants answer had put the plaintiff on notice of an arbitration defense holding that for a plaintiff to recover on claim of negligent hiring the negligent hiring of the employee must have been the proximate cause of the injury at issue holding that negligent hiring and training claim was not adequately alleged where plaintiff identified no prior violation by the employee relating to sexual misconduct that could have put the defendant on notice holding that a cause of action or negligent hiring training and retention can proceed only if the alleged negligence leads to the commission of one of the torts enumerated in the tort claims act holding that first amendment barred negligent hiring and supervision claim against archdiocese for alleged sexual abuse of minor by priest