Stevens v. Sodexo, Inc.
846 F. Supp. 2d 119
D.D.C.2012Background
- Stevens sued Sodexo, Inc. and affiliated entities in DC District Court for wrongful termination, identity theft, and related claims; case removed to federal court in 2011.
- Stevens alleged he was terminated in Sept. 2009 and Aug. 2010, later rehired and then terminated again; payroll checks continued to be issued in his name and were cashed by Rollins.
- Complaint is poorly drafted with misnumbered counts but identifies Count 1 (breach of contract; wrongful termination), Count 2 (negligence), Count 3 (claims against Rollins), and Count 4 (joint and several liability against Sodexo and Rollins).
- Sodexo moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); Stevens sought a sur-reply and later a conversion request to summary judgment with limited discovery.
- The court applied Twombly/Iqbal standards, and ultimately granted Sodexo’s motion to dismiss all claims against Sodexo and affiliated entities, while granting Stevens’ sur-reply and denying the conversion request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stevens states a claim for breach of contract. | Stevens contends there was an employment contract. | Sodexo argues at-will employment and lack of contract terms. | Counts 1 breach claims dismissed. |
| Whether Stevens adequately pleads wrongful termination. | Stevens relies on public policy exceptions to at-will termination. | No clearly articulated public policy with a close fit. | Wrongful termination claims dismissed. |
| Whether Stevens pleads negligence by Sodexo. | Sodexo breached duty to safeguard identity and for negligent hiring/supervision. | No recognized DC duty to safeguard employee identities or support negligent hiring. | Negligence claims dismissed. |
| Whether Stevens can pursue respondeat superior or joint liability in Count 4. | Sodexo and Rollins acted in concert; possible vicarious liability. | Allegations fail to show Rollins acted within scope of employment or direct liability by Sodexo. | Count 4 dismissed; no direct or vicarious liability established. |
| Whether Stevens’ motions to file a sur-reply and to convert to summary judgment are valid. | Sur-reply and conversion warranted to address new arguments. | Sur-reply not ordinarily allowed; conversion improper. | Sur-reply granted; motion to convert denied as moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must contain plausible claims, not mere conclusory assertions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for surviving a motion to dismiss)
- Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., Inc., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991) (public policy limits on at-will termination claims; narrow to broader applicability)
- Carl v. Children’s Hosp., 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997) (public policy exceptions require close fit with conduct and policy; policy anchored in statute or constitution)
- Carter v. District of Columbia, 980 A.2d 1217 (D.C. 2009) (public-policy-based wrongful termination requires identifiable policy and jurisdictional remedy not provided by the policy)
- Convit v. Wilson, 980 A.2d 1104 (D.C. 2009) (vicarious liability scope; employer liable only for acts within employee's scope of employment)
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. Reddick, 398 A.2d 27 (D.C. 1979) (core vicarious liability framework; scope-of-employment standard)