Skip to main content

Kronk v. Getts

Ohio Ct. App.April 22, 2024No. CA2023-09-014Cited 2 times
Plaintiff WinGetts
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
S. Powell
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Harassment

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision granting Ashley Kronk a civil stalking protection order against Ashley Getts. The court found sufficient credible evidence that Getts engaged in a pattern of conduct causing Kronk to fear physical harm or mental distress through online harassment, phone contact, and in-person confrontations.

Excerpt

The trial court did not err by granting appellee a civil stalking protection order against appellant pursuant to R.C. 2903.214(C)(1) where the trial court's finding appellant had engaged in a pattern of conduct that either knowingly caused appellee to believe that appellant would cause her physical harm or knowingly caused appellee to suffer mental distress was supported by sufficient evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence given appellant's repeated harassment of appellee over the preceding two years

What This Ruling Means

# Kronk v. Getts: Workplace Harassment Case Summary ## What Happened Ashley Kronk took legal action against Ashley Getts after experiencing repeated harassment. The harassment included unwanted online contact, phone calls, and in-person confrontations that made Kronk afraid for her safety and caused her emotional distress. ## What the Court Decided An Ohio appeals court upheld a lower court's decision to grant Kronk a civil stalking protection order against Getts. The court found that sufficient evidence proved Getts engaged in a pattern of harassing behavior that intentionally caused Kronk to fear physical harm or suffer mental distress. ## Why This Matters for Workers This ruling reinforces that employees have legal protection against workplace harassment that goes beyond isolated incidents. Courts recognize that repeated harassment—whether through phone, online, or in-person contact—can constitute stalking. Workers who experience this type of pattern of behavior can seek court protection orders, not just rely on employer complaints. This case shows that harassment causing reasonable fear or emotional distress is taken seriously by courts.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Harassment cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.