The Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled in the case of Cortes-Yepez v. Avelar, reversing a lower court's decision that denied a victim of workplace stalking a Stalking No Contact Order (SNCO). The ruling, issued on June 12, 2026, affects individuals who may face stalking behavior in their workplaces and emphasizes the importance of legal protection in such situations.
The case arose when Jorge Luis Cortes-Yepez filed a petition against his former coworker, Gerardo Avelar, alleging a pattern of stalking behavior that included physical violence and harassment. The court's decision highlights the legal obligations under the Stalking No Contact Order Act and the necessity of issuing protective orders to ensure the safety of victims.
Background
Jorge Luis Cortes-Yepez filed a pro se petition for an emergency SNCO against Gerardo Avelar in December 2024, claiming that Avelar had stalked him during their employment at a restaurant. Cortes-Yepez alleged that Avelar directed violent and harassing behavior towards him, particularly due to his sexual orientation. Incidents included Avelar hitting Cortes-Yepez in the face with a clam, asphyxiating him with a plastic bag, and making threatening comments.
After the emergency SNCO was granted, a plenary hearing took place in March 2025. During the hearing, Cortes-Yepez testified about the incidents, and the court noted that Avelar had engaged in multiple acts of physical abuse. However, the trial court ultimately denied the plenary SNCO, stating that it was unnecessary since the two men no longer worked together. The court's reasoning raised questions about the interpretation of the Stalking Act and the protections it affords victims.
The Ruling
The Illinois Appellate Court ruled that the trial court erred in denying the plenary SNCO. The court emphasized that the Stalking Act mandates the issuance of an SNCO when stalking behavior is established. Justice Pucinski, who delivered the judgment, stated, "the Stalking Act does not grant a court the discretion to deny an SNCO after determining that stalking occurred." This ruling clarifies that the presence of stalking behavior necessitates protective measures, regardless of the current employment status of the parties involved.
The appellate court found that the trial court had acknowledged Cortes-Yepez's allegations as serious and credible but failed to issue the SNCO based solely on the fact that the two men were no longer coworkers. The appellate court noted that the purpose of the Stalking Act is to provide a remedy for victims who experience safety fears or emotional distress due to stalking.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for victims of workplace stalking and harassment in Illinois. It reinforces the idea that the legal system must provide protection to individuals who face threats and violence, regardless of their current relationship with the perpetrator. The court's interpretation of the Stalking Act clarifies that once stalking behavior is established, a court is required to issue a protective order.
The decision also emphasizes the importance of understanding the Stalking Act's provisions and the rights of victims. It sends a strong message that stalking behavior will not be tolerated and that victims have the right to seek protection under the law. This ruling may encourage more individuals to come forward and seek legal recourse in similar situations.
What's Next
The appellate court's decision allows for the issuance of a two-year plenary SNCO to protect Cortes-Yepez from Avelar. The ruling can potentially be appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, but details regarding any pending appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing. The case highlights the ongoing need for legal protections for victims of stalking and harassment.