we must reinstate her negligent retention claim. She argues that her negligent retention claim failed based solely on the failure to establish an underlying tort. J&J contends that the jury heard all the evidence and that Tomczyk simply failed to prove a negligent retention claim. Under Georgia law, “a defendant employer has a duty to exercise ordinary care not to hire or retain an employee the employer knew or should have known posed a risk of harm to others where it is reasonably foreseeable from the employee’s ‘tendencies’ or propensities that the employee could cause the type of harm sustained by the plaintiff.” Munroe v. Universal Health Servs., Inc., 277 Ga. 861, 596 S.E.2d 604, 606 (2004); see also Eckhardt v. Yerkes Reg’l Primate Ctr., 254 Ga.App. 38, 561 S.E.2d 164, 166 (2002) (<HOLDING>). As we have discussed, the jury checked the
holding that a negligent retention claim was properly dismissed when there was no underlying tort upon which it could have been based holding that negligent retention and supervision claims based upon a pastors sexual contact with parishioners was barred by the first amendment recognizing a tort action when employee was dismissed for filing a workers compensation claim holding that because no class was certified at the time the individual claims were dismissed the class action was properly dismissed recognizing as viable actions in tort negligent hiring and negligent retention