Fired University of Dubuque Professor Wins Unemployment Benefits After Grooming Charge Dismissed

A former University of Dubuque associate professor, fired after being charged with grooming a minor, is now entitled to collect unemployment benefits after a judge ruled the university failed to prove misconduct. The criminal charge was also dismissed due to a conflict between Iowa's age of consent and its grooming law.

Nathan Hough, who worked as an associate professor of psychology at the university since August 2025, was fired on March 16, 2026, one day after his arrest. The criminal case stemmed from an undercover operation by Manchester police, who used a dating app to pose as a 16-year-old boy.

How the Undercover Operation Unfolded

According to police records, Officer Joshua McCraney created a profile on the dating app Grindr, listing his age as 18 but using an AI-generated photo that made him appear around 16. Hough messaged the officer and asked his age. When McCraney replied he was 16, Hough responded, 'That is OK,' and later suggested meeting up for sexual activity.

Police allege Hough sent nude photos and arranged to meet at a park in Manchester. When he arrived in a white Ford Explorer, he was arrested by two Manchester police officers and three Iowa State Patrol troopers. He was charged with grooming and dissemination of obscene material to a minor.

Unemployment Benefits Ruling

After his firing, Hough applied for unemployment benefits. Administrative Law Judge Jamie West ruled in his favor, stating that while the university could fire Hough for any non-illegal reason, it failed to prove he engaged in actual misconduct.

'Being arrested and charged with a crime, regardless of the type, is not the same as a conviction,' West wrote in her ruling. She noted the university relied solely on the arrest, which did not meet the legal standard for denying benefits.

Grooming Charge Dismissed Due to Age of Consent

The criminal case took a similar turn. Delaware County prosecutors only pursued the grooming charge, dropping the obscene material count. Hough's public defender moved to dismiss, arguing that Iowa's age of consent is 16, and the grooming law requires an underlying unlawful sexual act.

On June 30, 2026, Delaware County Attorney John W. Bernau filed a motion to dismiss, citing a 'lack of evidence.' Bernau explained the dismissal was due to a 'statutory defect' in Iowa's grooming law, which defines a child as under 18 but requires an unlawful sexual act.

'It really kind of fell on what I would consider to be a statutory defect,' Bernau said. 'The (grooming law) talks about a child under the age of 18, but there has to be an unlawful sexual act that is involved. And so there's a little bit of a defect there with this question of whether there really would have been any unlawful sexual act since the person (Hough) thought he'd be meeting up with was 16.'

What This Means for Iowa Law

Iowa's felony-level grooming statute was passed by the Legislature in 2024. It defines grooming as using digital communication to entice a child under 18 to commit an unlawful sex act. However, Iowa's age of consent is 16, creating a conflict that led to the dismissal.

Critics argue the law needs clarification to ensure it can be enforced against adults targeting minors, while supporters of the age of consent say the law should not criminalize consensual activity between a 16-year-old and an adult. The case highlights a gap in Iowa's legal framework that lawmakers may need to address.

FAQ: Key Questions About the Case

Why was the grooming charge dismissed?

The charge was dismissed because Iowa's age of consent is 16, and the grooming law requires an underlying unlawful sexual act. Since the officer told Hough he was 16, the alleged conduct would not have been illegal under state law.

Can Hough still face consequences?

Hough has been fired from the university and the criminal case is dismissed. He is now entitled to unemployment benefits. No further legal action is currently pending.

What does this mean for Iowa's grooming law?

The case exposes a statutory defect in the 2024 law. Lawmakers may need to revise the law to clarify that targeting a minor under 18, regardless of age of consent, constitutes grooming.