Dungarvin Lawsuit: Abuse, Employment, and Wage Claims

Dungarvin lawsuits over the past two decades have centered on four recurring problems: abuse and neglect of residents in its group homes, employment discrimination and termination disputes, unpaid wages for in-home care workers, and state regulatory violations at its intermediate care facilities. Outcomes have varied widely. A mother in Oregon sought up to $4.5 million after alleging severe neglect of her disabled son; a Colorado appellate court threw out a negligence suit on statutory immunity grounds; a federal judge in Minnesota granted Dungarvin summary judgment in a race discrimination case in April 2026. The company, a family-owned provider founded in 1976 that serves people with intellectual and developmental disabilities across more than 15 states, has roughly 10,000 employees and is currently absorbing 128 facilities divested under a Federal Trade Commission consent order.

Abuse and Neglect Claims in Oregon

The largest publicly reported claim came in 2019, when Margaret Lamb sued Dungarvin Oregon LLC, Multnomah County, and the state of Oregon on behalf of her son Matthew, a developmentally disabled man who had lived in a Dungarvin group home on 193rd Avenue in Portland. The complaint sought up to $4.5 million.¹

According to the complaint, Matthew was strangled by other residents on at least two occasions, potentially exposed to sexual abuse by another resident, and left isolated for long stretches in an unheated, unventilated garage. It alleged staff failed to treat infections from lacerations, allowed him to lose weight through neglect, and kept him in bedding soaked with urine and feces. His mother said Dungarvin did not maintain the one-on-one staffing ratio required by his individual support plan, and that she filed repeated abuse reports with Multnomah County and the state between February 2015 and February 2018 without adequate response. Matthew was moved to a foster home in July 2018, and the group home closed on May 31, 2019.¹

The single case sat inside a wider record. The Oregon Department of Human Services had substantiated more than 100 abuse reports at Dungarvin facilities in the state since 2008, and in 2018 Dungarvin Oregon had the highest rate of substantiated abuse claims relative to its size among Oregon residential providers serving adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.¹

Why a Colorado Assault Case Was Dismissed

Not every abuse-related suit reaches the merits. In J.C. and C.C. v. Dungarvin Colorado, LLC, parents sued Dungarvin and several co-defendants after a Dungarvin client with developmental disabilities and a juvenile sex-offense history, identified as “D.C.,” allegedly sexually assaulted their minor child at a church-sponsored social event on July 4, 2006. The parents argued the defendants negligently failed to supervise D.C. and failed to warn them about his history.²

On August 5, 2010, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants. Under Colorado Revised Statutes section 13-21-117.5, providers serving people with developmental disabilities are immune from civil liability for those individuals’ violent or assaultive behavior unless the individual has communicated a “serious and credible threat of imminent physical violence” against a specific person. No such threat was alleged, so the statute barred the claim. The decision was described as a case of first impression interpreting that immunity law.²

Employment and Termination Suits

Daramola v. Dungarvin Minnesota

Femi Joseph Daramola, a former Mental Health Specialist II, sued Dungarvin Minnesota, LLC in federal court, alleging he was fired because of his race in violation of Title VII. Dungarvin had terminated him in February 2023 after a January 2023 incident in which a vulnerable adult under his overnight supervision ingested windshield washer fluid and had to be hospitalized for dialysis. The company’s internal investigation concluded he committed gross negligence by failing to follow overnight monitoring protocols and to maintain constant visual supervision.³

Daramola argued the investigation was “structurally one-sided,” called the report a forgery, and said similarly situated employees of other races had been treated more favorably. He tried to add claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, but the court denied leave to amend.⁴

On April 23, 2026, Judge Katherine M. Menendez granted Dungarvin’s motion for summary judgment. The court found no evidence of discriminatory intent and no specific similarly situated comparators. The Minnesota Department of Human Services had separately investigated the January 2023 incident and found Daramola responsible for neglect. A Human Services Judge upheld that finding and concluded his testimony lacked credibility, and his appeal to Scott County District Court was dismissed as untimely.⁴

Albert v. Dungarvin Minnesota

Kallys Albert, a former employee representing himself, filed a nine-count complaint against Dungarvin Minnesota, Inc. and six other defendants, raising federal civil rights claims and state claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and workers’ compensation interference laws. In March 2009, the Minnesota Court of Appeals dismissed nearly all of it, holding that his constitutional claims failed because he had not alleged state action by the private defendants and that most of the remaining counts stated no viable claim. The court reversed on one point: it revived his claim that Dungarvin intentionally obstructed his pursuit of workers’ compensation benefits and sent it back for further proceedings.⁵

Figgs v. Dungarvin

Joan Figgs worked in Dungarvin group homes, suffered a work-related back injury in January 2004, and returned on light-duty clerical work. Dungarvin fired her in April 2004, accusing her of falsifying time records and forging supervisor signatures. Figgs said she had claimed pay for time at work sites where she was locked out for lack of a key or access code, and denied any forgery. Compensation Judge William Johnson ruled her conduct amounted to “poor judgment” rather than the “willful or wanton disregard” required to constitute misconduct under Minnesota law, so the termination did not disqualify her from temporary total disability benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals affirmed in December 2004.⁶

Unpaid Travel Time in Ohio

In September 2022, Duvall v. Dungarvin Ohio, LLC was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio as a collective and class action. The complaint alleged that Dungarvin Ohio failed to pay hourly in-home care workers, including direct support professionals, caregivers, and home health aides, for travel time between clients’ residences during the workday, producing unpaid overtime in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law. The plaintiffs sought three years of back wages, liquidated damages doubling that amount, and attorneys’ fees. The case was terminated on October 18, 2023; the docket does not state whether it was certified, settled, or dismissed, and no settlement figure is publicly listed.⁷

State Regulatory Findings in Indiana

Some of the more concrete records of alleged mistreatment come from state surveys rather than courtrooms. A survey of a Dungarvin facility in Valparaiso, Indiana conducted in late December 2014 and early January 2015 cited the facility for failing to implement written policies to prevent client-to-client aggression and neglect, and for failing to conduct thorough investigations of abuse allegations. Both deficiencies had been cited weeks earlier in November 2014 and remained uncorrected. Documented incidents included staff and maintenance personnel found sitting on a client during a physical restraint in November 2014, which led to a recommendation that the staff member be terminated, and a December 2014 case in which the facility failed to investigate a client who harmed herself by inserting an earring under a scab. The Program Director acknowledged there was no written documentation showing that all relevant staff and clients had been interviewed during investigations.⁸

A January 2025 emergency preparedness survey at a Dungarvin facility in Merrillville, Indiana found the facility out of compliance with federal emergency preparedness requirements. It had not reviewed or updated its emergency plan, communication plan, or training program since April 2021, past the required two-year review cycle, and lacked documentation of arrangements with other facilities to receive residents in an evacuation, as well as records of annual emergency drills.⁹

The FTC-Ordered Acquisition Is Not a Suit Against Dungarvin

A federal action often associated with Dungarvin’s name in 2026 is not litigation against the company. The Federal Trade Commission required Sevita Health to divest 128 intermediate care facilities in Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas as a condition of its $835 million acquisition of BrightSpring Health Services’ ResCare business, on the ground that the deal would reduce competition for residential care serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Dungarvin Group, Inc. was selected as the buyer of the divested facilities.¹⁰ The consent order, finalized on June 10, 2026, required Sevita to help Dungarvin obtain licensing and permits, hold staffing and funding steady until handoff, and offer employment to existing workers for at least one year.¹¹ The deal adds 128 residential facilities to a Dungarvin portfolio that already spans 15 states and about 10,000 employees.¹²

1
OregonLive. $4.5 Million Lawsuit Alleges Abuse of Developmentally Disabled Man at State-Licensed Group Home
2
Findlaw. J.C. and C.C. v. Dungarvin Colorado, LLC
3
Justia. Daramola v. Dungarvin Minnesota, LLC
4
GovInfo. Daramola v. Dungarvin Minnesota, LLC – Order
5
vLex. Albert v. Dungarvin Minnesota Inc.
6
Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Court of Appeals. Figgs v. Dungarvin, Inc.
7
CourtListener. Duvall v. Dungarvin Ohio, LLC
8
Indiana Department of Health. Dungarvin Indiana LLC Survey Report – Valparaiso
9
Indiana Department of Health. Dungarvin Indiana LLC Survey Report – Merrillville
10
Federal Trade Commission. FTC Finalizes Consent Order in Sevita-BrightSpring Acquisition
11
Federal Register. Sevita and BrightSpring – Analysis of Proposed Agreement Containing Consent Orders
12
Dungarvin. Dungarvin Embraces Technology Transformation