Local jewelry business ensnared in family’s ‘nanny cam’ video voyeurism lawsuit

Michael Schwartz May 2, 2023 8

Lustre is located in part of the former Adolf Jewelers storefront in Ridge Shopping Center. (BizSense file photo)

A West End jewelry store tied to a longtime local jeweler family has become entangled in a $5 million lawsuit involving one of its owners and her husband.

Lustre, along with owner Robin Salzberg and her husband, Daniel Salzberg, are attempting to fend off a complaint brought by the couple’s former nanny, who also worked for Lustre and claims she’s owed damages for alleged workplace sexual harassment and related emotional fallout after discovering a hidden camera in the bathroom while working at the family home in western Henrico.

The plaintiff is identified in court records only as Jane Doe. She first filed suit against the Salzbergs and Lustre in Henrico Circuit Court in September 2021.

“Ms. Doe suffered repeated grooming and sexual harassment in the Salzberg home – her workplace, culminating in disturbing and horrendous video surveillance of Ms. Doe in the Salzberg’s downstairs restroom,” Doe argues in court filings.

The case has since dragged on for nearly two years, with all defendants calling for dismissal. Lustre has been the most active of the defendants, making multiple arguments it shouldn’t be a party to the dispute. But the business’s pleas thus far haven’t swayed the judge and a trial is set for December for all involved.

Daniel Salzberg

Daniel Salzberg, who is not an owner or employee of Lustre, bears the brunt of Doe’s allegations and is facing additional legal backlash from the alleged camera episode.

He’s also being sued by the couple’s former housekeeper, who filed suit a month prior to Doe’s in August 2021, claiming she found the camera in question.

The housekeeper, Ana Liz Farina, is suing only Daniel and is seeking $300,000 in damages on claims of violations of state privacy codes and infliction of severe emotional distress.

While fighting to distance herself and her business from the Doe case, Robin Salzberg recently filed for divorce from Daniel.

The April 20 divorce filing states the couple has been separated since November 2021, just months after the Doe and Farina filings. It states that reconciliation of the marriage is unlikely.

Robin is the daughter of Ronnie Adolf, who operated Adolf Jewelers locally for over 55 years. The business was started by Robin’s grandparents. In 2018, after Ronnie Adolf’s retirement, Robin and business partner Daniel Wright opened Lustre by Adolf in part of the former Adolf Jewelers storefront at 1539 N. Parham Road in Ridge Shopping Center.

Camera discovered, origin unconfirmed

Both Doe and Farina claim that on the morning of Dec. 7, 2020, Farina discovered a camera installed beneath a floor vent cover in the Salzbergs’ downstairs bathroom.

Farina, in her court filing, described the camera as “positioned within the air vent in a manner that would allow it to capture video footage of a person using the toilet and in a manner that concealed its presence.”

Court filings state that Farina removed the air vent to get to the camera while Doe photographed the device. Both lawsuits include photos of the device in question.

The two say they then followed a cord from the camera to a storage room in the home and found that the camera was connected through a hole drilled into a vent and plugged into a power outlet.

Both women claim they frequented the restroom while working in the home.

“So disturbed by what she had seen, and the realization that she was being videoed while using the bathroom, Ms. Doe vomited off the side of the Salzberg’s porch,” Doe claims in her lawsuit.

Both Doe and Farina discussed whether to call the police or call Robin. Doe’s suit says they chose the latter. “They trusted that she would do the right thing and call the police,” Doe’s suit states.

However, Daniel then rushed home and immediately removed the camera before claiming an unknown individual was responsible for the device.

Robin Salzberg

Doe’s suit claims the couple initially said they had a stalker, with Robin later claiming that Daniel had a history of drug addiction, had relapsed during the pandemic and that “someone from his past may have placed the camera in the bathroom.”

Doe also claims the Salzbergs’ children and friends of the children often used the same restroom. She claims she implored the Salzbergs to call law enforcement. When they did not, she claims, Doe filed a police report with Henrico County on Dec. 9, 2020. The lawsuit states that report was then transferred to the FBI. No formal criminal charges have been filed in relation to the case, according to court records.

Doe’s lawsuit claims that Robin eventually admitted the camera belonged to the couple and Daniel had purchased it. However, Daniel, in his response to the suit, “specifically denies installing a video camera in the main floor bathroom… and has no personal knowledge of any video or audio recording,” that may have resulted from the camera.

Doe, in later court filings, calls the explanation of a third-party culprit a “feeble attempt to explain the placement of the camera…”

Doe’s claims

Court filings in the Doe case claim she requested anonymity to preserve her privacy “in a deeply sensitive and highly personal matter.”

A 2020 graduate of VCU, Doe had been working as a nanny to the Salzbergs’ two children since 2018. While in school and majoring in advertising, Doe was enlisted by Robin to help with Lustre’s marketing and social media efforts. That position began in 2019, with Doe doing much of the work while at the Salzberg home in between caring for the children.

Doe claims that upon her hiring the Salzbergs disclosed the existence of a “nanny cam” in the home’s living room that was connected to Daniel’s phone. Doe states she was later made aware of numerous other cameras installed by Daniel over time, both inside and outside the home, and that he had a professional interest in high-tech security. It’s unclear what Daniel does for a living.

Beginning during the pandemic in 2020, Doe claims Daniel, who is in his mid-40s, began harassing her through episodes that included inappropriate text messages late at night, taking unwanted photographs of her while she played with the children and other behavior that over time became “sexual in nature.”

Doe claims Robin “knew of and tacitly approved Daniel’s inappropriate behavior,” toward her.

Doe claims she never returned to work for the Salzbergs or Lustre after the day the bathroom camera was discovered.

Her 28-page lawsuit alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of state computer crimes laws against Daniel; negligence against Robin; negligent infliction of emotional distress against both Daniel and Robin; worker misclassification and sexual harassment against Lustre; and wrongful termination against both Salzbergs and Lustre.

The lawsuit claims Doe has experienced significant physical and emotional symptoms of distress and has been diagnosed with PTSD as a result of the allegations. She also claims she is worried about her ability to secure future employment because the Salzbergs and Lustre were her primary employers and only employment references.

Doe asks for a jury trial. She is represented in the case by Henry Willett of the law firm Christian & Barton. Willett did not return calls for comment last week.

Calls for dismissal

Robin, in calling for the claims against her to be dismissed, argues that Doe failed to properly state a claim for negligence, physical injury and wrongful termination.

Robin is represented by Mark Nanavati of Sinnott, Nuckols & Logan. Nanavati declined to comment when reached last week.

Among Daniel’s arguments for dismissal are that Doe doesn’t actually allege that the camera captured footage of her use of the toilet but only that it “‘…likely did,’” and that there’s been no proof presented as to the existence of any footage or recordings.

“Daniel affirmatively states that he knows of no “recording of video and audio footage of Ms. Doe in a private act…”

Daniel also denies pursuing, sexually harassing and inappropriately surveilling Doe.

Daniel is represented by Charles Adams of Zwerdling, Oppleman, Adams & Gayle. Adams did not return calls seeking comment last week.

Lustre, in asking to be released from the saga, argues that Doe cannot impute liability upon Lustre for sexual harassment claims against Daniel.

“The heart of this case is against Daniel and arises out of Daniel’s alleged actions in the Salzberg home,” Lustre argues in court records. “Plaintiff takes a huge leap trying to impose liability on Lustre for Daniel’s alleged acts while Plaintiff worked as a nanny in his home.”

Lustre also argues that Doe was an independent contractor for the company and therefore certain employment laws don’t apply to her case. It reiterates that Daniel is not an employee or owner of Lustre and none of the alleged acts happened at the Lustre place of employment.

“In this case, Plaintiff has compounded two wholly separate worlds in an attempt to create confusion as to whether Lustre should be liable for events outside of its responsibility,” Lustre argues in court filings.

“The only connection that Plaintiff can make between her interaction with Daniel while she was acting as a nanny for the children, on the one hand, and Lustre, on the other hand, is that Plaintiff sometimes worked on Lustre’s digital marketing and social media campaigns while nannying for the children, Daniel’s wife Robin was a co-owner of Lustre, and Robin allegedly knew of Daniel’s behavior. None of these claims survive scrutiny,” Lustre argues.

Lustre is represented by Eve Campbell of O’Hagan Meyer. Campbell did not return calls for comment last week.

Farina, the former housekeeper, claims that Daniel violated state code by allegedly recording her without her knowledge and without her consent in a setting where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Daniel denied Farina’s allegations in a response filed in October 2021 and called for the suit to be dismissed. His attorney deposed Farina on Feb. 3, but no new hearings have been set in that case.

Farina is represented by attorney Jonathan Halperin of Halperin Law Center. Halperin did not return a call seeking comment.

Doe was deposed in the Lustre case on April 13. That case is scheduled for a jury trial beginning Dec. 13 at 10 a.m.

Lustre is located in part of the former Adolf Jewelers storefront in Ridge Shopping Center. (BizSense file photo)

A West End jewelry store tied to a longtime local jeweler family has become entangled in a $5 million lawsuit involving one of its owners and her husband.

Lustre, along with owner Robin Salzberg and her husband, Daniel Salzberg, are attempting to fend off a complaint brought by the couple’s former nanny, who also worked for Lustre and claims she’s owed damages for alleged workplace sexual harassment and related emotional fallout after discovering a hidden camera in the bathroom while working at the family home in western Henrico.

The plaintiff is identified in court records only as Jane Doe. She first filed suit against the Salzbergs and Lustre in Henrico Circuit Court in September 2021.

“Ms. Doe suffered repeated grooming and sexual harassment in the Salzberg home – her workplace, culminating in disturbing and horrendous video surveillance of Ms. Doe in the Salzberg’s downstairs restroom,” Doe argues in court filings.

The case has since dragged on for nearly two years, with all defendants calling for dismissal. Lustre has been the most active of the defendants, making multiple arguments it shouldn’t be a party to the dispute. But the business’s pleas thus far haven’t swayed the judge and a trial is set for December for all involved.

Daniel Salzberg

Daniel Salzberg, who is not an owner or employee of Lustre, bears the brunt of Doe’s allegations and is facing additional legal backlash from the alleged camera episode.

He’s also being sued by the couple’s former housekeeper, who filed suit a month prior to Doe’s in August 2021, claiming she found the camera in question.

The housekeeper, Ana Liz Farina, is suing only Daniel and is seeking $300,000 in damages on claims of violations of state privacy codes and infliction of severe emotional distress.

While fighting to distance herself and her business from the Doe case, Robin Salzberg recently filed for divorce from Daniel.

The April 20 divorce filing states the couple has been separated since November 2021, just months after the Doe and Farina filings. It states that reconciliation of the marriage is unlikely.

Robin is the daughter of Ronnie Adolf, who operated Adolf Jewelers locally for over 55 years. The business was started by Robin’s grandparents. In 2018, after Ronnie Adolf’s retirement, Robin and business partner Daniel Wright opened Lustre by Adolf in part of the former Adolf Jewelers storefront at 1539 N. Parham Road in Ridge Shopping Center.

Camera discovered, origin unconfirmed

Both Doe and Farina claim that on the morning of Dec. 7, 2020, Farina discovered a camera installed beneath a floor vent cover in the Salzbergs’ downstairs bathroom.

Farina, in her court filing, described the camera as “positioned within the air vent in a manner that would allow it to capture video footage of a person using the toilet and in a manner that concealed its presence.”

Court filings state that Farina removed the air vent to get to the camera while Doe photographed the device. Both lawsuits include photos of the device in question.

The two say they then followed a cord from the camera to a storage room in the home and found that the camera was connected through a hole drilled into a vent and plugged into a power outlet.

Both women claim they frequented the restroom while working in the home.

“So disturbed by what she had seen, and the realization that she was being videoed while using the bathroom, Ms. Doe vomited off the side of the Salzberg’s porch,” Doe claims in her lawsuit.

Both Doe and Farina discussed whether to call the police or call Robin. Doe’s suit says they chose the latter. “They trusted that she would do the right thing and call the police,” Doe’s suit states.

However, Daniel then rushed home and immediately removed the camera before claiming an unknown individual was responsible for the device.

Robin Salzberg

Doe’s suit claims the couple initially said they had a stalker, with Robin later claiming that Daniel had a history of drug addiction, had relapsed during the pandemic and that “someone from his past may have placed the camera in the bathroom.”

Doe also claims the Salzbergs’ children and friends of the children often used the same restroom. She claims she implored the Salzbergs to call law enforcement. When they did not, she claims, Doe filed a police report with Henrico County on Dec. 9, 2020. The lawsuit states that report was then transferred to the FBI. No formal criminal charges have been filed in relation to the case, according to court records.

Doe’s lawsuit claims that Robin eventually admitted the camera belonged to the couple and Daniel had purchased it. However, Daniel, in his response to the suit, “specifically denies installing a video camera in the main floor bathroom… and has no personal knowledge of any video or audio recording,” that may have resulted from the camera.

Doe, in later court filings, calls the explanation of a third-party culprit a “feeble attempt to explain the placement of the camera…”

Doe’s claims

Court filings in the Doe case claim she requested anonymity to preserve her privacy “in a deeply sensitive and highly personal matter.”

A 2020 graduate of VCU, Doe had been working as a nanny to the Salzbergs’ two children since 2018. While in school and majoring in advertising, Doe was enlisted by Robin to help with Lustre’s marketing and social media efforts. That position began in 2019, with Doe doing much of the work while at the Salzberg home in between caring for the children.

Doe claims that upon her hiring the Salzbergs disclosed the existence of a “nanny cam” in the home’s living room that was connected to Daniel’s phone. Doe states she was later made aware of numerous other cameras installed by Daniel over time, both inside and outside the home, and that he had a professional interest in high-tech security. It’s unclear what Daniel does for a living.

Beginning during the pandemic in 2020, Doe claims Daniel, who is in his mid-40s, began harassing her through episodes that included inappropriate text messages late at night, taking unwanted photographs of her while she played with the children and other behavior that over time became “sexual in nature.”

Doe claims Robin “knew of and tacitly approved Daniel’s inappropriate behavior,” toward her.

Doe claims she never returned to work for the Salzbergs or Lustre after the day the bathroom camera was discovered.

Her 28-page lawsuit alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of state computer crimes laws against Daniel; negligence against Robin; negligent infliction of emotional distress against both Daniel and Robin; worker misclassification and sexual harassment against Lustre; and wrongful termination against both Salzbergs and Lustre.

The lawsuit claims Doe has experienced significant physical and emotional symptoms of distress and has been diagnosed with PTSD as a result of the allegations. She also claims she is worried about her ability to secure future employment because the Salzbergs and Lustre were her primary employers and only employment references.

Doe asks for a jury trial. She is represented in the case by Henry Willett of the law firm Christian & Barton. Willett did not return calls for comment last week.

Calls for dismissal

Robin, in calling for the claims against her to be dismissed, argues that Doe failed to properly state a claim for negligence, physical injury and wrongful termination.

Robin is represented by Mark Nanavati of Sinnott, Nuckols & Logan. Nanavati declined to comment when reached last week.

Among Daniel’s arguments for dismissal are that Doe doesn’t actually allege that the camera captured footage of her use of the toilet but only that it “‘…likely did,’” and that there’s been no proof presented as to the existence of any footage or recordings.

“Daniel affirmatively states that he knows of no “recording of video and audio footage of Ms. Doe in a private act…”

Daniel also denies pursuing, sexually harassing and inappropriately surveilling Doe.

Daniel is represented by Charles Adams of Zwerdling, Oppleman, Adams & Gayle. Adams did not return calls seeking comment last week.

Lustre, in asking to be released from the saga, argues that Doe cannot impute liability upon Lustre for sexual harassment claims against Daniel.

“The heart of this case is against Daniel and arises out of Daniel’s alleged actions in the Salzberg home,” Lustre argues in court records. “Plaintiff takes a huge leap trying to impose liability on Lustre for Daniel’s alleged acts while Plaintiff worked as a nanny in his home.”

Lustre also argues that Doe was an independent contractor for the company and therefore certain employment laws don’t apply to her case. It reiterates that Daniel is not an employee or owner of Lustre and none of the alleged acts happened at the Lustre place of employment.

“In this case, Plaintiff has compounded two wholly separate worlds in an attempt to create confusion as to whether Lustre should be liable for events outside of its responsibility,” Lustre argues in court filings.

“The only connection that Plaintiff can make between her interaction with Daniel while she was acting as a nanny for the children, on the one hand, and Lustre, on the other hand, is that Plaintiff sometimes worked on Lustre’s digital marketing and social media campaigns while nannying for the children, Daniel’s wife Robin was a co-owner of Lustre, and Robin allegedly knew of Daniel’s behavior. None of these claims survive scrutiny,” Lustre argues.

Lustre is represented by Eve Campbell of O’Hagan Meyer. Campbell did not return calls for comment last week.

Farina, the former housekeeper, claims that Daniel violated state code by allegedly recording her without her knowledge and without her consent in a setting where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Daniel denied Farina’s allegations in a response filed in October 2021 and called for the suit to be dismissed. His attorney deposed Farina on Feb. 3, but no new hearings have been set in that case.

Farina is represented by attorney Jonathan Halperin of Halperin Law Center. Halperin did not return a call seeking comment.

Doe was deposed in the Lustre case on April 13. That case is scheduled for a jury trial beginning Dec. 13 at 10 a.m.

Your subscription has expired. Renew now by choosing a subscription below!

For more informaiton, head over to your profile.

Profile

TERMS OF SERVICE:

ALL MEMBERSHIPS RENEW AUTOMATICALLY. YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR A 1 YEAR MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL AT THE RATE IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME UNLESS YOU CANCEL YOUR MEMBERSHIP BY LOGGING IN OR BY CONTACTING [email protected].

ALL CHARGES FOR MONTHLY OR ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS ARE NONREFUNDABLE.

EACH MEMBERSHIP WILL ONLY FUNCTION ON UP TO 3 MACHINES. ACCOUNTS ABUSING THAT LIMIT WILL BE DISCONTINUED.

FOR ASSISTANCE WITH YOUR MEMBERSHIP PLEASE EMAIL [email protected]

Michael Schwartz is the editor of Richmond BizSense, and covers banking, lawsuits, finance, M&A and golf. He can be reached at [email protected] or 804-855-1037.

Mental illness is running rampant in this country…

Let’s not disparage mental illness every time a garbage human does something gross. Some people are just garbage.

The tag line for BizSense shouldRead “We cover everything from Triple-Net leases to toilet cams.”

I think it is terrible that you all would report on this. This is such a personal story and so embarrassing for the innocent bystanders.

How about the INNOCENT minors and Adults who were filmed without their knowledge……..shame on you Lisa Mcsherry. They knew and tried to cover it up.They Both should be put on the National Sex Offender Registry permanently.These are the things that should be reported; not the same old same old.Thank you for covering a local story!May all the innocent seek justice and peace.

Absolutely. ANYONE who has been in the powder room of that home has likely had their privacy violated. Shameful.

I’m sorry that Robin and her business are going through this. She is a class act.

Daniel is not mentally ill, Daniel is evil, drug fueled or not.

I’m just curious, but how did Jane Doe come up with the $5mil number, when the housekeeper sues for $300K? I am not an attorney, but how does the business gets sued, “Daniel is not an employee or owner of Lustre” – if I were on the jury, that one is a stretch.