## Facts

- Robin Brown-Criscuolo was an elementary school principal in a Connecticut public school district with supervisory responsibility for special-education compliance.
- She objected to changes in district special-education policies and practices that she believed violated legal requirements and students’ rights, communicating those concerns within the school system.
- She alleged the superintendent, Robert K. Wolfe, responded with intimidation and hostility as she continued raising objections.
- Brown-Criscuolo developed stress-related health problems and took extended medical leave.
- During her leave, Wolfe obtained access to her district-provided email account and allegedly read and printed messages, including personal and union-related communications, without her consent.
- The district had a computer/email acceptable-use policy, but it did not clearly eliminate employee privacy expectations or clearly authorize unrestricted administrative review of employee emails.
- Brown-Criscuolo sued asserting federal constitutional claims under § 1983, federal statutory claims under the Stored Communications Act, Wiretap Act, and Rehabilitation Act, and Connecticut tort claims for emotional distress and invasion of privacy.
- Wolfe moved for summary judgment on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s complaints about special-education compliance were protected First Amendment speech or speech made pursuant to her official duties.
2. Whether the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a school-provided email account and, if so, whether the superintendent’s access was an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
3. Whether accessing and reviewing stored emails in the account constituted an unlawful access or interception under the Stored Communications Act or Wiretap Act.
4. Whether the plaintiff produced evidence of discrimination solely by reason of disability under the Rehabilitation Act.
5. Whether the alleged conduct could support Connecticut claims for intentional (or reckless) infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy.

## Decision

- Summary judgment was granted for the defendant on the First Amendment claim.
- Summary judgment was granted for the defendant on the Fourteenth Amendment claim.
- Summary judgment was granted for the defendant on the Stored Communications Act claim.
- Summary judgment was granted for the defendant on the Wiretap Act claim.
- Summary judgment was granted for the defendant on the Rehabilitation Act claim.
- Summary judgment was denied on the Fourth Amendment claim due to factual disputes about privacy expectations and the purpose and scope of the email access.
- Summary judgment was denied on the Connecticut intentional (or reckless) infliction of emotional distress claim.
- Summary judgment was denied on the Connecticut invasion of privacy claim.

## Legal Principles

- A public employee’s internal communications made pursuant to official job responsibilities are not protected by the First Amendment as citizen speech, even if they address compliance concerns.
- Workplace email can support a reasonable expectation of privacy where employer policies do not clearly disclaim privacy or clearly authorize broad monitoring; whether a search is reasonable may depend on disputed facts about purpose, scope, and justification.
- Civil liability under the Stored Communications Act and Wiretap Act requires satisfaction of statutory elements (including qualifying “electronic storage” and “interception” concepts); accessing previously stored emails, without more, may not meet those requirements on the presented record.
- Rehabilitation Act liability requires evidence that adverse action occurred solely by reason of a qualifying disability; evidence of non-disability reasons for the challenged conduct can defeat the claim at summary judgment.
- Under Connecticut law, claims for emotional distress and invasion of privacy may proceed where a factfinder could view the alleged workplace conduct and email intrusion as sufficiently extreme or offensive, depending on disputed facts.

## Conclusion

The court granted summary judgment to the superintendent on the plaintiff’s First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Stored Communications Act, Wiretap Act, and Rehabilitation Act claims, but held that factual disputes about privacy expectations and the nature and scope of the email access required trial on the Fourth Amendment claim and related Connecticut tort claims for emotional distress and invasion of privacy.


Brown-Criscuolo v. Wolfe, 601 F. Supp. 2d 441 (D. Conn. 2009)