23-05-2025
Corrections officer fired for alleged inmate relationship wins jobless benefits
Iowa Workforce Development manages unemployment claims filed on behalf of Iowans. (Photo by Getty Images, logo courtesy the State of Iowa)
A female corrections officer fired for an alleged romantic relationship with an inmate has been awarded unemployment benefits.
State records indicate Azucena D. Valenzuela was employed as a corrections officer at the Fort Dodge Correctional Facility for three years before she was fired by the Iowa Department of Corrections in March 2025 for a having a relationship with an inmate.
According to the records, two of Valenzuela's superiors approached her last October about a rumor that she was being enlisted to smuggle items into a correctional facility for a specific inmate. Valenzuela denied any knowledge of such activity, but her superiors allegedly told her that her interactions with the inmate in question were concerning.
On Dec. 22, 2024, the department placed Valenzuela on administrative leave while it investigated an alleged improper relationship between her and the inmate. The investigation looked into reports of Valenzuela talking with the inmate on the phone, talking with the inmate for extended periods during work hours, and what the department characterized as the two looking at each other in an 'inappropriate' manner.
The department alleged that video footage showed Valenzuela talking with the inmate for extended periods on multiple occasions between Oct. 8, 2024. and Dec. 22, 2024, including six occasions in which they were captured on video while Valenzuela was working.
The department also claimed that during an encounter on Nov. 21, 2024, Valenzuela took the inmate's iPad-style device and input the number of a 'burner phone' she had purchased. However, at Valenzuela's subsequent hearing on her application for unemployment benefits, the Department of Corrections provided 'no evidence of any information put into the device at or around the time' Valenzuela handled it, Administrative Law Judge Blair Bennett observed.
The Department of Corrections also alleged the inmate had called Valenzuela's phone on multiple occasions, expressing his affection for her and wanting to be with her. The person on the other end of the phone made similar comments. The department claimed multiple people said they believe it was Valenzuela on the receiving end of those calls, but it provided no such testimony from those individuals.
The department, Bennett later concluded, had conducted an extensive investigation and had determined that allegations of staff sexual misconduct were founded. Bennett noted that the corrections department had chosen not to offer any testimony from the witnesses it claimed to rely on in deciding to fire Valenzuela, nor did it provide her with any copies of phone recordings.
The department, Bennett found, 'chose not to produce any witnesses to the alleged incidents, and did not produce anything that would credibly establish (Valenzuela) as being involved in phone calls with the inmate.' As such, she ruled, Valenzuela was qualified to receive unemployment benefits.
It's not the first time the Department of Corrections has chosen to provide no direct evidence at hearings alleging workplace misconduct. In 2023, for example, the Fort Dodge facility fired corrections officer Robert W. Goodner for allegedly providing some unspecified form of 'contraband' to inmates.
At Goodner's hearing for unemployment benefits, none of the financial and phone records the department had subpoenaed — which would likely reveal the full scope of any alleged sales and the precise nature of any contraband — were offered into evidence. In addition, none of the DOC employees directly involved in the investigation testified at the hearing. As a result, Goodner was awarded unemployment benefits.
Asked then why the DOC didn't present any records at Goodner's hearing, Fort Dodge Correctional Facility Deputy Warden Don Harris said it was unclear what information the DOC should be sharing with others.
'I don't know, since that's part of an investigation for criminal prosecution, that the information should be put out there for anyone else,' Harris told the Iowa Capital Dispatch.
Other Iowans recently fired for alleged misconduct include:
— Thomas E. Patterson, who in April was fired from the Iowa Department of Corrections' Mt. Pleasant Correctional Facility. Patterson had worked for the DOC as a full-time corrections officer since May 1999. State records indicate that while DOC policy restricted employees' personal use of the internet, the agency's employees regularly used Google Chat to communicate with each other at work. Throughout Patterson's employment, he allegedly used Google Chat to discuss with colleagues subjects that were not work related.
On Dec. 2, 2024, the DOC began an investigation into Patterson's internet usage and downloaded and reviewed more than 4,000 pages of Google Chat conversations between Patterson, his supervisor and his coworkers that dated back to 2023. As part of that process, the department also compiled all of the comments the claimant had made that the employer deemed objectionable, such as comments that were critical of management or which expressed frustration with staff or the workplace.
On April 2, 2025, the Mt. Pleasant Correctional Facility fired Patterson due to alleged violations of the employer's information technology policy. He was awarded unemployment benefits, with the judge noting that Patterson's Google Chat conversations had included his own supervisor, which provided the facility's management with 'immediate knowledge' of any misconduct. Despite that knowledge, the judge noted, Patterson wasn't fired until April 2025.
— Ricky Lichtenberger, who was fired in February from Per Mar Security where he had worked since October 2023. According to the company, Lichtenberger was working in the security office of a hospital when a female EMT walked in and found Lichtenberger watching a sexually explicit video on his phone. The EMT later reported the video was playing loudly and she heard references to a woman's anatomy and to certain sexual positions. When a manager asked Lichtenberger about the incident, he allegedly replied that it may have happened as described and that he 'might have forgotten (he) was at work.'
Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth Johnson ruled Lichtenberger was ineligible for unemployment benefits and ordered that he repay $2,227 already collected. The video content, she ruled, 'had nothing to do with his work as a security officer and (Lichtenberger's) decision to not just watch the video but play its sound at full volume created, at minimum, an uncomfortable work environment for his coworkers and all others entering the security office.'
— Allison Austin, who in April was fired by the University of Iowa where she worked as a clerk. According to state records, Austin was accused of making 'sexual noises' during a quarterly, department-wide Zoom meeting that she attended by computer. Austin told the Iowa Capital Dispatch she doesn't recall whether she had her computer's camera activated during the meeting, but said that at some point during the session she had inadvertently activated her microphone. She said she believes she may have made some innocuous comments she didn't intend her colleagues to hear, but which two human resources officials later claimed were noises of a sexual nature.
'You think these people in HR are there to protect you, but they're accusing you having sex on a team meeting,' Austin told the Capital Dispatch. 'I was mortified.'
Austin was fired not for her conduct during the meeting, but for discussing with her co-workers the university's investigation of that conduct. She was denied unemployment benefits. Austin said she intends to appeal that ruling.
