Latest news with #StateofIowa
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Yahoo
High school teacher who gave student a condom loses her job and unemployment benefits
Iowa Workforce Development manages unemployment claims filed on behalf of Iowans. (Photo by Getty Images, logo courtesy the State of Iowa) A southern Iowa school teacher who lost her job after giving a female student a condom for the girl's protection has been denied unemployment benefits. According to state records, Cheyenne Wilson was hired as a high school science teacher by the Clarke Community School District in August 2024. According to testimony given at a state hearing in March, four girls were in Wilson's classroom on Nov. 14, 2024, for an after-school study session. The students were seated approximately 4 feet away from Wilson while discussing a text conversation one of the students was having with a boy. One of the students asked Wilson is she knew the definition of an acronym used to describe a particular sex act, and Wilson responded that she did, after which the student stated her own definition of the term. The conversation then shifted to another sex act, with one student indicating she was nervous about performing the act and using her teeth. Wilson allegedly responded, 'Don't use your teeth, then.' When it became clear to Wilson that the student was planning to have sex with a boy, she gave the student a condom from her desk for the girl's protection. Four days later, a complaint was filed with the school district and the principal, Joe Blazevich, began an investigation, with Wilson placed on administrative leave. The district later sent a letter to Wilson, saying her behavior had called into question her fitness for duty and her ability to serve as an effective role model for students and employees of the district. The letter went on to state that Wilson was not to speak to students and staff or be on school district premises or attend any district activities during the investigation. On Nov. 20, 2024, Blazevich and Superintendent Kurt DeVore held a meeting with Wilson, during which she allegedly confirmed what had transpired during the Nov. 14 incident. DeVore told Wilson she had the option to resign and that if she refused there would be an additional 'district level' investigation of her conduct. Wilson opted to resign. Wilson was initially awarded unemployment benefits after a fact-finding interview, but the school district appealed that decision, leading to a March 28 hearing before Administrative Law Judge Emily Drenkow Carr. At the hearing, Blazevich testified that Wilson should have redirected the students' conversation to a more appropriate subject matter and noted that Wilson was not a sex educator and was not tasked with addressing such issues with students. In finding that Wilson was not entitled to unemployment benefits, Carr stated the evidence indicated Wilson's resignation was not forced and that she was given the option of remaining employed while undergoing a district-level investigation that might involve the school board. 'While Ms. Wilson's decision to resign may have been for good personal reasons, it was not with good cause attributable to the employer,' Carr ruled.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Yahoo
DNR officer claims PTSD and sues the agency after being fired for unprofessional conduct
(Main image by; DNR insignia courtesy State of Iowa) An Iowa Department of Natural Resources officer fired for unprofessional conduct and using a confidential state database to screen potential dates is now suing the department, alleging she's the victim of post-traumatic stress disorder. State records indicate Angela Jansen of Central City worked for the DNR as a conservation officer from October 2018 to August 2023, when she was fired for conduct unbecoming a state employee and for the unauthorized personal use of a DNR database. Jansen recently filed a lawsuit against the DNR in Polk County District Court, alleging the department violated her civil rights when it fired her as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder triggered by fatalities she encountered at work. In her lawsuit, Jansen says she 'witnessed multiple critical incidents involving the tragic deaths of others,' including a 2018 incident during her field training when a pickup truck become engulfed in flames and the occupant was unable to escape the vehicle. In 2019, the lawsuit alleges, Jansen witnessed a second catastrophic vehicle accident at work where she was unable to assist the victims. 'After witnessing these horrific events, Jansen was not offered any counseling or other services, in violation of department policy,' the lawsuit claims. 'As a result, her mental health began to deteriorate.' In May 2023, Jansen alleges, she was involved in an on-duty incident where a person drowned and again, the department failed to follow its critical incident policy by requiring her to attend mandatory counseling. Jansen alleges that on the evening of June 14, 2023, while off duty in Ankeny, she consumed alcohol as a mechanism to cope with her mental health struggles. Officers from the Ankeny Police Department provided Jansen with a ride home later that same evening, the lawsuit claims. On June 28, 2023, Jansen was informed by the DNR that she was suspended pending an investigation into her conduct. A month later, Jansen's medical provider diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder and she requested a leave of absence from the department, proposing the department pause its personnel investigation into her conduct on June 14, 2023, so that she could first obtain treatment. On Aug. 2, Jansen was fired. Jansen's lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate a disability, retaliation, and violations of the Iowa Civil Rights Act. The state has yet to file a response to the lawsuit. However, it did challenge Jansen's claim for unemployment benefits after her dismissal. In that case, the state alleged that during the June 14, 2023, incident, Jansen was off duty and on a date while carrying her service weapon in her purse. At some point in the evening, Jansen called an ex-boyfriend to come pick her up from her date. The ex-boyfriend is a felon, according to state records, and while he and Jansen were in his car the two began arguing. The argument escalated to the point where the ex-boyfriend's Apple watch determined there was an emergency of some kind and dialed 911 without the two realizing it. Ankeny police arrived on the scene and began investigating the matter. The DNR's law enforcement bureau chief, Craig Cutts, later testified that he reviewed the officers' body-camera footage and saw video of Jansen telling the responding officers she had a gun in her purse. When asked why she had a gun, Jansen reportedly identified herself as a DNR officer. During the discussion with police, Jansen allegedly asked one of the officers if he dated older women and referred to him as 'Officer Hot Stuff,' the DNR later alleged. In addition, she reportedly admitted more than once that it was likely that she was drunk at the time, then informed the officers she had used a state database maintained by the DNR to determine the marital status of at least one person she was considering dating. Ankeny police did not arrest Jansen or issue any citations, but they did confiscate the purse with the gun in it and drove Jansen home where they returned the items. Shortly thereafter, Jansen reported some details of the incident to Cutts. Jansen's direct supervisor, Capt. Deb Vitko, then contacted Cutts and allegedly told him she had heard about the incident over the police radio and there was more to the story than what Jansen had self-reported. She reportedly told Cutts about the firearm and said there appeared to be some question as to whether the ex-boyfriend had been held against his will. Cutts then initiated an investigation and reviewed the body-camera footage and police reports. The department ultimately concluded Jansen had acted in a manner unbecoming of a state employee and that she had improperly accessed and then used information from the DNR database. Jansen's application for jobless benefits was later decided by Administrative Law Judge Alexis Rowe who ruled that Jansen's off-duty behavior was disqualifying job-related misconduct. Jansen 'acted inappropriately with a police officer, asking him if he dated older women and calling him 'Officer Hot Stuff,'' Rowe stated. The judge added that Jansen 'also admitted more than once that it was likely she was drunk. These actions were objectively harmful to the employer's interests in maintaining the reputation of professionalism for its officers.' According to state records, Jansen had one previous disciplinary warning for conduct unbecoming a state employee. That warning, which was coupled with a suspension, was issued in June 2021 after Jansen was arrested for drunken driving in Linn County where tests showed she had a blood-alcohol level of .172 percent — more than twice the legal limit. In that case, Jansen was convicted of first-offense drunken driving and sentenced to 48 hours in jail to be served on weekends.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Yahoo
Iowa lawyer, already suspended, cited for sex allegations against woman
(Main photo by simpson33 via iStock / Getty Images Plus; seal courtesy State of Iowa) A central Iowa lawyer, with his license already suspended for misconduct, has been publicly reprimanded for telling a woman's friends and associates she was a 'swinger' while detailing for them her alleged sexual activities. The Iowa Attorney Disciplinary Board alleges that attorney David Leitner of Johnston violated the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct by sending out a letter in which he levied the accusations against a woman who had dated one of his clients for about a year. After the woman ended the relationship, Leitner allegedly sent a letter, on his law office letterhead, to the woman and 13 other individuals, some of whom were the woman's friends, relatives or acquaintances. The letter began, 'As you well know, (the woman) was in a relationship with (Leitner's client). Recently it has come to our attention that (she) has been spreading mistruths about my client and false allegations, therefore we are going to set the record straight one time, in the hope this ceases or we will all be subject to litigation very soon.' According to the board, the letter went on to allege the woman was a 'swinger' and it provided details related to the woman's alleged 'sexual exploits and infidelity.' The letter also alleged the woman attempted to engage Leitner's client in a sex act in May 2023 and that she had a consensual sexual encounter with the client in July 2023. Less than a week after sending the letter, Leitner filed two civil lawsuits against the woman on behalf of his client, alleging defamation. In deciding to publicly reprimand Leitner, the board said that regardless of the truth of his letter, Leitner's decision to send it to the woman's associates violated the Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct for lawyers. In its decision, the board stated that Leitner's 'claimed reason of sending the letter 'to advise the defamer just to stop doing it as well as to notify those persons with whom she has been known to have contact' was disingenuous. Your intended purpose could have been accomplished without including details of (the woman's) sex life … The clear purpose of sending this letter to complainant, her family, her friends, and her acquaintances was to embarrass and harass her.' The board stated that in light of the fact that Leitner was already serving a two-year license suspension that was imposed early last year, a public reprimand was the appropriate sanction. The Iowa Capital Dispatch was unable to reach Leitner for comment. But in response to the board's written notice of reprimand, Leitner sent an email to the director of the Attorney Disciplinary Board in which he likened the board to England's notorious Star Chamber of the 1600s, which was known for its lack of due process and secretive court proceedings. 'While it is clear that you do not have all relevant information,' Leitner wrote, 'considering how I was treated by your star chamber last time, I have elected not to bother protesting.' Leitner's email appears to reference his 2022-24 disciplinary proceedings. In that case, Leitner was accused of dishonest behavior and attempting to 'swindle' taxpayers. As part of that case, the Grievance Commission of the Iowa Supreme Court recommended that Leitner's license be revoked, in part for the potentially 'criminal' act of helping a client hide assets from the federal government and to what the commission called Leitner's 'long pattern of deliberate misconduct and dishonesty.' Leitner contested the commission's recommendation that his license be revoked, arguing that the disciplinary board's actions were 'abusive.' The board countered that while Leitner stood accused of wrongdoing in four separate cases, his conduct in just one of those cases warranted a license revocation on its own. Leitner, the board alleged, had helped defraud the federal government by hiding a client's assets and taking 'active steps to keep the government from ever finding out the money existed.' Leitner, the board says, 'effectively swindled the federal government out of money that it rightfully should have possessed.' The case in question involved Leitner's representation of Iowa seed dealer Marvin Mitchell and the creation of a limited liability company called Foodprairie. In 2007, Mitchell was convicted of bankruptcy fraud and sentenced to 18 months in prison after it was found that he had hidden assets from creditors by creating various business entities just before he declared bankruptcy. In 2013, while still owing at least $70,000 to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and with federal liens against his properties, Mitchell allegedly hired Leitner to create Foodprairie and had Leitner declare himself to be the managing member of the corporation. Mitchell was selling seed at that time and allegedly routed his income from the business to Foodprairie, where he could access the money while concealing it from the federal government. The creation of a company to hide assets 'could be criminal and certainly fraudulent, dishonest (and) deceitful,' the disciplinary board said. 'The whole point of Leitner's Foodprairie scheme was to deprive the federal government of the funds to which it had rights.' In February 2024, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a two-year suspension, rather than a revocation, of Leitner's license was the appropriate sanction. Leitner is a 1979 graduate of the University of Iowa Law School. He began practicing law in Iowa later that year.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Yahoo
Fired and convicted of harassment, former teacher wins jobless benefits
Iowa Workforce Development manages unemployment claims filed on behalf of Iowans. (Photo by Getty Images, logo courtesy the State of Iowa) An Iowa school teacher who was convicted of harassment after being accused of trying to insert himself into a student's sex life has been awarded unemployment benefits. In July 2024, Cherokee Washington High School band instructor Joseph Vannatta pleaded guilty to a charge of harassment after being accused by police of engaging in a 'scheme of conduct to insert himself in to (a student's) sexual life.' Two months before Vannatta pleaded guilty in the case, he was fired by the Cherokee Community School District. He then filed for unemployment benefits, which the district challenged. A hearing on the matter was held on Feb. 1, 2025, with Administrative Law Judge Sean Nelson presiding. Earlier this week, Nelson ruled Vannatta was eligible for benefits, finding the school district had not 'met its burden to describe the specific incidents that allegedly violated (state law). The only specific act described by the employer, either in exhibits or through testimony, is (Vannatta's) plan to have this student attend an honor band event in Cedar Falls. Though the circumstances of this student's attendance at the event, given his poor grades, is suspicious, these circumstances do not prove (Vannatta) used his authority to sexually exploit this student.' In his ruling, Nelson noted the school district was unable to provide specific dates for the incidents in which Vannatta was alleged to have asked the student about his sex life. In addition, Nelson said, the district fired Vannatta before he pleaded guilty to a charge of harassment — which meant the plea couldn't have been a factor in the decision to fire him. Court records indicate police had accused Vannatta of holding counselling sessions in his office while the alleged victim and another individual sat on a couch. Vannatta allegedly 'inserted himself in Snapchats with (the student) and continued to get personal with Snapchat streaks,' according to a police report. A Snapchat 'streak' is a continuous message thread that extends over a period of days. The police report states Vannatta 'would engage in sexual talk about (the student) and his boyfriend' by stating, 'This is a safe space,' and asking, 'Are you a top or bottom?' and, 'Do you prep before sex?' and, 'What else have you done sexually?' According to the police report, Vannatta also provided the student and the student's boyfriend with the use of his home and bedroom so they could 'nap' while Vannatta and his family were in the basement. In February 2023, after the student was allegedly deemed ineligible at school to participate in an honor band event, 'Vannatta schemed and to lied to the principal,' saying he would give the student extra credit so he could participate in the event. Although no extra credit was provided, the student went to the event with Vannatta acting as the 'only chaperone' for him and a few girls, police allege. As a result of those actions, police alleged, the student felt he was being groomed to have a relationship with Vannatta. In March 2024, almost a year after police were first informed of Vannatta's alleged conduct, they charged him with felony sexual exploitation by a school employee. His attorney later filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing the sexual exploitation law was 'unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.' To support that argument, Vannatta's attorney, Jaclyn Fox, argued a required element of the exploitation charge was sexual conduct — and there were no allegations against Vannatta to support that element of the offense. 'The state simply alleges generally that (the student) 'felt' he was being 'groomed' to have a relationship with the defendant,' Fox argued, adding that 'feeling a certain way does not constitute an element of the charge here.' Fox also argued the word 'grooming' was 'currently being used to progress political agendas,' citing state lawmakers' backing of a 2024 bill, House File 2487, that would require reporting to a state board whenever a school district takes disciplinary action against a licensed employee for 'grooming.' Fox noted the bill defined 'grooming behavior' as attempts to 'seduce, solicit, lure, or entice a student' to participate in a sexual act. Shortly after Fox filed her motion to dismiss, Cherokee County prosecutors changed the charged offense to harassment, an aggravated misdemeanor. Within days, Vannatta pleaded guilty to the harassment charge, stating in writing that he 'participated in unwarranted personal communications with another person about his sex life without legitimate purpose and in a manner likely to cause the other person annoyance or harm.' Prior to his being sentenced to two years of probation, more than a dozen individuals — including parents, a former school board member and several former students — wrote to the judge and provided character references for Vannatta. As part of the 2025 legislative session, state lawmakers have advanced a bill that would alter the definition of 'grooming' as used in the bill that was signed into law last year. That law defines 'grooming' as the use of 'digital or written communication to entice, encourage, or lure a child into committing a sex act.' The new legislation, House Study Bill 46, defines 'grooming' as 'the process of building trust or emotional connections with a student with the intent to exploit such student.' Officials with the Board of Educational Examiners told lawmakers the Iowa Attorney General's Office informed them the current law cannot be applied to cases where the suspect has not engaged in sex with a student.
