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.
This story is courtesy of Iowa Capital Dispatch
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here