Facing charges of lascivious acts, fired schoolteacher wins jobless benefits

An Ankeny school teacher who was fired after being criminally charged with lascivious acts involving a child is entitled to collect unemployment benefits, a judge has ruled.

Court records show that on Sept. 10, 2025, police arrested Michael Scott Burrows, 50, of Ankeny and charged him with three counts of lascivious acts involving a child by touching his genital to a child’s body. At the time, Burrows was a full-time teacher and band instructor for Ankeny Christian Academy, where he had worked since August 2021.

According to police, sometime during the 2021-22 school year, Burrows, on three separate occasions, had inappropriate contact with a sixth-grade girl who was under the age of 12 at the time.

According to police, on some occasions Burrows would approach the girl at her locker, grab her waist and push his body against her and rub his hands up and down her back.

In one instance, he allegedly approached the girl as she played a xylophone-type of instrument, stood behind her and pressed his body against hers with his hands on her inner-thigh area and waist. The girl allegedly told police she ran from the room, vomited, and left the school building.

The available records give no indication as to why the charges were filed last year but involved incidents that are alleged to have taken place in 2021 or 2022.

Burrows has pleaded not guilty in the case, and a trial is now scheduled for Aug. 31, 2026.

State records indicate the criminal investigation that led to the charges sprang from a formal complaint of some kind that an Ankeny Christian Academy parent filed with the school on Aug. 7, 2025. The school reported the complaint to the Iowa Department of Education. The state agency then contacted Ankeny police officers, who launched a criminal investigation.

State records indicate that on Aug. 21, 2025, Burrows stopped reporting for work, possibly because he had been placed on leave at that point.

On Sept. 10, 2025, the school learned Burrows had been arrested and that a protective order had been issued preventing Burrows from having any interaction with minors. According to school officials, they then began receiving complaints from parents that they would withdraw their children from the academy if Burrows was allowed to return to work. In addition, some teachers threatened to quit if Burrows returned to work.

On Sept. 30, 2025, the school fired Burrows, indicating the confidence of students and families was being undermined by reports of his arrest, and that Burrows would no longer be able to effectively teach in the classroom.

Burrows then applied for unemployment benefits, which the school challenged. That led to a recent hearing before Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth Johnson.

In deciding that Burrows was entitled to collect jobless benefits, Johnson noted the school did not conduct its own investigation into the allegations against Burrows.

“The Ankeny Christian Academy presented testimony that parents were threatening to pull their students out of the school and teachers were threatening to leave employment if the school continued employing Mr. Burrows,” Johnson wrote in her ruling. “The administrative law judge is not in a position to second-guess the business decisions of an employer, particularly when an employer has specialized considerations such as ensuring the safety of students. However, the employer has not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr. Burrows engaged in any actual misconduct.  The employer relied solely on the arrest and the public outcry that resulted from that in making its decision.  Being arrested and charged with a crime, regardless of the type, is not the same as a conviction.”

The issue before her, Johnson noted, was not whether the school made the correct decision in firing Burrows, but whether, under Iowa law, Burrows was entitled to collect unemployment insurance benefits.

“What constitutes misconduct justifying termination of an employee and what misconduct warrants denial of unemployment insurance benefits are two separate decisions,” she stated in her ruling.