KENT, Conn.— Daniel Clery of Brookfield, a former IT staff member at Kent School, was spared jail time Monday when a judge sentenced him to a 10-year suspended sentence.
He must register as a sex offender for 10 years and will be on probation for five years. The sentence results from a plea deal worked out with prosecutors last spring. He pled nolo contendere to two counts of computer crimes in March—a plea that does not admit or deny guilt but agrees to accept the punishment—and the judge pronounced him guilty at that time.
The sentencing phase on June 29 brought anguished testimony from the victims who delivered impact statements. One student said the effect of his actions “followed me into college, into my relationships and into the way I move through the world.”
In a letter, a staff member reported having nightmares, panic attacks, insomnia and migraines that ultimately caused her to resign from her job.
Clery worked at Kent School for 23 years before being fired in 2023, according to prosecutors. Kent School commissioned a forensic report that found that Clery viewed and copied thousands of images from student Google accounts, mostly targeting female students. He was charged with the crimes in 2024 after an investigation by State Police showed he had accessed personal photos and screen shots of memos and other information about some 81 students or staff members at Kent School —79 of whom were female.
Legal issues surrounding the case are not over, however, as a Waterbury Superior Court judge has allowed portions of a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of the victims to proceed against Kent School.
Judge Daniel Klau certified the class action in March, allowing current and former Kent School students to collectively pursue claims that the school was negligent, acted recklessly, and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by failing to protect their personal data and adequately supervise Clery.
Klau limited the class action to claims of negligence; whether Kent School owed the plaintiffs a duty of care during the times the offenses took place; whether the school was reckless in meeting its duty of care, and whether the school’s failure to maintain reasonable cybersecurity protocols for a school environment constituted unfair or deceptive trade practices under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).
He denied class action on claims of invasion of privacy, computer crimes and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
