Background
Terron Jacox, a Walgreens associate, sought an emergency stalking no-contact order against Jennifer Baymon, the store manager. His petition described workplace incidents in which he said Baymon escalated disputes, blocked his exit from an office, and interfered with his efforts to leave work. The circuit court initially entered an ex parte emergency order.
After receiving notice, Baymon sought a rehearing under the Stalking No Contact Order Act. At the contested hearing, Jacox testified about disputes concerning ice found in a work box, a requested shift change, and his effort to leave work while feeling ill. He acknowledged that Baymon had not interacted with him outside work, followed him, visited his home, threatened physical harm, or physically touched him apart from her hair grazing his beard while she reached for a phone.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s directed finding for Baymon and vacatur of the emergency order. Reviewing de novo because the circuit court ruled that Jacox had not established a prima facie case, the court held that his evidence did not show a statutory course of stalking conduct.
The incidents were workplace disputes that Jacox initiated by raising complaints, requesting a shift change, or asking to leave work. They did not show following, surveillance, monitoring, threats, property interference, or conduct that would cause a reasonable person to fear for safety or suffer emotional distress as required by the Act. The court also rejected Jacox’s scheduling and bias arguments, finding he was clearly told to bring his evidence and witnesses to the May 22 rehearing and had not supported his bias claim.
Key Takeaways
- Ordinary, even unpleasant, workplace conflicts do not alone establish stalking under the Stalking No Contact Order Act.
- A directed finding that a petitioner failed to make a prima facie case is reviewed de novo.
- Pro se appellants must still provide developed arguments and supporting authority, though the court considered this appeal on the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that stalking no-contact relief requires evidence meeting the Act’s objective statutory elements, not merely evidence of distress arising from workplace-management interactions. It also illustrates that a respondent who lacked notice of an emergency order may obtain a contested rehearing, where the petitioner must prove the claim.