The family of Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian woman who was fatally attacked aboard a light-rail train in Charlotte, North Carolina, has filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against the city and the private company responsible for transit security.

The lawsuit alleges that inadequate security staffing, weak fare enforcement and a lack of physical barriers left passengers vulnerable to foreseeable dangers on the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS).

Filed on August 21, 2026, shortly before the first anniversary of Zarutska’s death, the complaint names the City of Charlotte and Professional Security Services (PSS), the company contracted to provide security for the transit network.

The family argues that the tragedy could have been prevented if appropriate security measures had been in place.

However, the allegations have not yet been established in court, and the city has declined to comment on the active litigation.

A LAWSUIT FILED ONE YEAR AFTER THE TRAGEDY
Zarutska was killed on August 22, 2025, while riding Charlotte’s LYNX Blue Line.

She had come to the United States from Ukraine after fleeing the war and was traveling on public transportation when the attack occurred.

Authorities identified Decarlos Brown Jr. as the suspect and charged him with first-degree murder.

The incident attracted national attention and raised questions about passenger safety, security staffing and the way potentially dangerous situations are handled on public transportation.

One year later, Zarutska’s family took their concerns to civil court, seeking accountability not only through the criminal justice system but also through a review of the policies and practices governing the transit network.

The lawsuit describes her death as preventable and argues that the city and its security contractor failed to take reasonable steps to protect passengers despite earlier incidents of violence on and around the system.

FAMILY ALLEGES THERE WAS NO SECURITY GUARD ON THE TRAIN
One of the central claims in the complaint is that no security guard was aboard the train when Zarutska was attacked.

The lawsuit alleges that Professional Security Services did not have enough personnel available to meet the security needs of the transit system.

According to the complaint, the amended contract provided funding for 219 security personnel during the 2025 and 2026 fiscal years. The family alleges that only 183 personnel had been hired by the time of the incident.

The complaint also alleges that the company had 11 armed security guards, despite the contract providing for as many as 39 armed personnel.

The family’s attorney, Lauren Newton, has argued that the alleged staffing shortages were part of broader failures within the system.

Whether additional security personnel would have prevented the attack remains a matter for the legal process. The lawsuit’s allegations have not yet been adjudicated.

QUESTIONS ABOUT FARE ENFORCEMENT
The lawsuit also challenges the transit system’s approach to fare enforcement.

According to the complaint, passengers could access buses and trains without passing through physical barriers such as turnstiles or gates.

The family alleges that this made it difficult to prevent people without valid tickets from boarding and limited the system’s ability to monitor who was using the network.

The complaint further argues that the lack of effective fare enforcement was part of a broader security problem rather than simply a financial issue.

Attorneys representing the family say the city should have addressed these concerns before the fatal incident.

The lawsuit points to previous violence on and around the Blue Line as evidence that the risks were foreseeable.

These claims are now part of the civil case, and the defendants have not been found liable.

STATE AUDIT IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS
The lawsuit followed a report released by North Carolina State Auditor Dave Boliek on August 17, 2026.

The audit examined security procedures, fare enforcement and financial issues within the Charlotte Area Transit System.

It found that the system lacked physical barriers to prevent people without tickets from boarding trains and estimated that approximately 60% of light-rail passengers were not paying fares.

The report estimated that fare evasion could cost the system between $5 million and $6.5 million annually.

Auditors also identified a sharp decline in fare-evasion citations and raised concerns about coordination between CATS surveillance systems and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department’s Real Time Crime Center at the time of Zarutska’s death.

The audit’s findings gave additional context to the concerns raised in the family’s lawsuit.

However, the audit and the lawsuit serve different purposes: the audit examines the transit system’s operations, while the civil case must establish the legal responsibility of the named defendants.

THE FAMILY IS SEEKING FINANCIAL DAMAGES AND ACCOUNTABILITY
The wrongful-death complaint seeks compensatory damages under North Carolina law.

It also seeks punitive damages against Professional Security Services, alleging serious failures in the company’s security responsibilities.

The family argues that the case is about more than financial compensation.

Its legal representatives have said they hope the lawsuit will prompt meaningful changes to transit security and help prevent similar tragedies.

The complaint includes allegations concerning negligent security, hiring, supervision and the deployment of personnel.

Those claims will need to be addressed through the court process, where the defendants can respond and challenge the allegations.

The filing itself does not establish that either the city or the contractor is legally responsible for Zarutska’s death.

THE CITY HAS DECLINED TO COMMENT ON THE CASE
The City of Charlotte has said it does not comment on active litigation.

The lawsuit also names Professional Security Services, the private contractor responsible for providing security for CATS.

The legal proceedings may require both defendants to respond to the allegations and address questions about their responsibilities, staffing decisions and security policies.

As of October 11, 2026, the publicly available reporting reviewed for this article has not established a final court ruling on the family’s claims.

The case therefore remains a civil dispute, and the allegations must be evaluated through the judicial process.

THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE SUSPECT REMAINS A SEPARATE MATTER
The civil lawsuit is separate from the criminal case against Brown.

Brown was charged with first-degree murder in connection with Zarutska’s death. In June 2026, a judge ruled that he was not competent to stand trial, putting the criminal proceedings on hold.

That ruling concerns whether Brown can currently participate in the criminal process. It is not a verdict on the murder charge.

The civil lawsuit, meanwhile, focuses on whether the city and its security contractor failed to take reasonable precautions to protect passengers.

The two cases may involve some of the same events, but they address different legal questions.

WHY THE CASE HAS DRAWN WIDER ATTENTION
Zarutska’s death has become part of a broader public debate about safety on public transportation.

The lawsuit and the state audit have brought renewed scrutiny to how security personnel are deployed, whether fare rules are enforced and how transit agencies coordinate with law enforcement.

The case has also raised questions about what transit authorities should do when previous incidents suggest that additional precautions may be necessary.

For Zarutska’s family, the lawsuit represents an effort to seek accountability for the loss of a young woman whose future was cut short.

For Charlotte officials and the security contractor, the case presents allegations that must be addressed in court.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The civil case will proceed as the parties address the complaint and the court determines how the claims should be handled.

The family is seeking damages and wants changes that could improve passenger safety across the transit network.

Meanwhile, the state audit’s findings remain relevant to the wider discussion about fare enforcement, staffing and security oversight.

No final determination has been made that the alleged failures caused Zarutska’s death.

The case will ultimately depend on the evidence presented and the legal standards that apply to the city and its contractor.

Nearly a year after the fatal attack, Zarutska’s family is seeking answers through the civil courts.

Their central argument is that the tragedy should prompt a serious examination of whether existing security measures were adequate—and whether changes could help protect other passengers in the future.

SOURCES
North State Journal — Charlotte Faces Lawsuit in Light Rail Murder, September 4, 2026