IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics fired a veteran social worker weeks after he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct following an arrest on charges that he assaulted his teenage daughter, a school spokesman acknowledged.

In response to an inquiry from The Associated Press, UI spokesman Tom Moore said that Frank Sammet's "term of service" with the school ended Oct. 19 but would not say whether he resigned or was fired. After repeated follow-up questions and an appeal to his superior for more information, Moore said Sammet was fired but would not say why.

The firing is a change for the university, which had allowed Sammet to continue seeing patients for months even as he was fighting criminal allegations that he choked, punched and kicked his 18-year-old daughter Feb. 2.

Sammet, who had worked at the university since 1996 and counseled patients with eating disorders, anxiety problems and relationship issues, did not return a phone message Monday. His attorney, Natalie Cronk of Iowa City, also did not return messages.

Sammet was initially charged with domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury following the altercation with his daughter at the home they shared in Iowa City. A criminal complaint alleged he grabbed her by the neck and choked her during an argument, punched and kneed her in the head and kicked her in the leg. She was left with a black eye, a bruised shin and a red mark on her beck, it said.

Sammet, 47, argued that his actions were in self-defense after his daughter attacked him. Before a trial scheduled for last month, he entered a plea to the disorderly conduct charge, was fined $100 plus court costs and ordered to get a substance-abuse evaluation.

He had previously been convicted of trespassing in March after a heated dispute with the director of a substance abuse center. In 2009, his ex-wife alleged during divorce proceedings that he had harassed, bullied and verbally abused her, calling her vulgar names and forcing her to secretly move out "to avoid a potentially violent scene."

Sammet had responded in an affidavit he did "lash out" at his ex-wife but only after she verbally and emotionally abused him. He downplayed the dispute with the center director, testifying he only threatened to report the man to regulators but denied screaming and said he was surprised he was charged.

Moore had declined in September to say why Sammet, who earned a salary of $65,700, was not suspended while he was fighting the charge — unlike some other employees barred from seeing patients after they were accused of misconduct.

After Sammet was no longer listed in an employee directory last week, Moore would only say Sammet's "term of service to the university concluded." After the AP asked university vice president Tysen Kendig to explain the statement, Moore sent an email saying Sammet "was terminated, or fired, from his position with the university."

Kathleen Richardson, executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council and a Drake University journalism professor, said Moore's initial refusals may have violated an Iowa law approved in May that declares whether an employee was discharged is public information once appeals are exhausted.

"It's because of situations like this that the changes were made in the law to make more information in the personnel records of governmental officials and employees a matter of public record," she said. "Up until this year, that section was sort of a black hole in which all sorts of information about government employees could be dropped and the public would have no idea. Especially in a situation like this where you have somebody who is working with especially vulnerable individuals, it would seem that as much transparency as possible is called for."

Moore said he was aware of the change in the law but could not say that Sammet was fired until he confirmed that the appeals were exhausted. He said Monday all his statements were true when they were made and the university made "a diligent effort" to comply with the law.

Iowa Ombudsman Ruth Cooperrider, whose office promotes good government, said the case illustrates why the law should be strengthened to require agencies to explain the reasoning behind an employee's firing. She had pushed for that language when the law was revised this year but was rebuffed.

"The fact that someone was discharged begs the question — why was the person discharged?" she wrote to lobbyists in February. "I believe the reason for a discharge is just as important or perhaps may even be of greater public interest in some situations."