HD Supply Lawsuit, Worker Alleges Forklift Fire, Discrimination, and Retaliation in $50 Million Federal Case
Yes, this is a real lawsuit. Former HD Supply warehouse employee Quinton J. Hall filed a federal employment lawsuit on November 14, 2025, against HD Supply, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:25-cv-06567). Hall alleges a forklift battery fire caused permanent injuries and triggered discrimination and retaliation at HD Supply’s Forest Park, Georgia distribution center. The case is currently in early court proceedings, with HD Supply having filed a partial motion to dismiss some claims. As of January 2026, no verdict or settlement has been reached.
This isn’t fake news or speculation—court dockets, legal filings, and OSHA records confirm the lawsuit is active and ongoing in federal court.
What the HD Supply Lawsuit Alleges
According to court documents, Hall claims that on June 27, 2024, he was operating a forklift at HD Supply’s GA02 Forest Park warehouse when the battery overheated, produced smoke, and allegedly exploded. Hall states he used fire extinguishers to control the situation but suffered a serious back injury and was exposed to fumes that left him disoriented.
After the incident, Hall alleges HD Supply failed to provide proper medical accommodations despite his documented injury. He claims that while white employees with injuries received light-duty assignments in an area workers called “the cage,” he was denied similar accommodations and instead assigned to heavy manual labor—pushing and pulling pallet jacks weighing 150 to 200 pounds—which conflicted with his medical restrictions.
Hall’s complaint accuses HD Supply of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (a federal law requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities), race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which prohibits employment discrimination based on race), retaliation for reporting safety concerns, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination. He was fired on July 25, 2024, approximately one month after the forklift battery incident. Hall is seeking at least $50 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
Who Is Involved in the Lawsuit
Plaintiff: Quinton J. Hall, a former warehouse forklift operator at HD Supply’s Forest Park facility who began working there in October 2023 through a temporary agency and converted to full-time employment in March 2024. Hall is representing himself without an attorney (called appearing “pro se” in legal terms).
Defendant: HD Supply, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Home Depot and one of the nation’s largest industrial distributors serving construction, maintenance, and commercial customers. The company operates distribution centers across the United States, including the GA02 facility in Forest Park, Georgia where the alleged incident occurred.
This is an individual lawsuit, not a class action. A class action is a lawsuit where one person sues on behalf of a larger group with similar claims, allowing many people to resolve their cases together. Hall is pursuing his case individually based on his specific experiences at the warehouse.
What Legal Issues Are at Stake
Hall’s lawsuit raises multiple federal and state legal claims. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers must provide reasonable accommodations (modifications to job duties or work conditions) for employees with disabilities unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Hall alleges HD Supply violated this law by denying him light-duty work after his injury while providing such accommodations to non-Black employees.
The lawsuit also invokes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 (a federal statute allowing uncapped damages in race discrimination cases). Hall claims he experienced disparate treatment—being subjected to different work rules, denied accommodations, and ultimately fired because of his race—while similarly situated white employees received preferential treatment.
Additionally, Hall alleges retaliation, which occurs when an employer punishes a worker for engaging in protected activity like reporting safety violations or filing discrimination complaints. Federal employment laws prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who raise workplace concerns.
State law claims include defamation (false statements that harm someone’s reputation) based on alleged statements that Hall was “faking” his injury, and wrongful termination under Georgia law.
What Happened in Court Proceedings
November 14, 2025: Hall filed his complaint with a jury demand in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. U.S. District Judge Sarah E. Geraghty is presiding, with U.S. Magistrate Judge Anna W. Howard assigned to handle certain procedural matters.
November 26, 2025: HD Supply was officially served with the lawsuit.
December 17, 2025: HD Supply filed its Answer and Defenses, responding to Hall’s allegations and denying wrongdoing.
December 2025: HD Supply filed a partial motion to dismiss, asking the court to throw out Hall’s state law claims (defamation and wrongful termination) before trial while the federal claims continue. A motion to dismiss is a legal request arguing that even if everything the plaintiff says is true, the law doesn’t support their claims.
December 30, 2025: Hall filed a response opposing HD Supply’s motion to dismiss. The court has not yet ruled on this motion.
The court also issued an order staying discovery deadlines (the pretrial process where both sides exchange documents and take witness testimony) until 30 days after the judge rules on HD Supply’s partial motion to dismiss.
What Evidence Supports the Claims
Unlike many individual employment lawsuits, Hall’s complaint includes extensive documentation. According to public summaries of the filing, Hall attached 17 notarized witness statements from current and former HD Supply employees describing the workplace conditions and treatment he alleges.
Hall also included photographs and video evidence allegedly showing flames or smoke from forklift battery charging equipment, including an image of a warehouse charger displaying temperatures around 158 degrees Fahrenheit. Internal incident reports describe the June 27, 2024 battery event.
The complaint references performance awards and positive evaluations Hall received before the incident, which he argues contradict HD Supply’s stated reasons for termination. Hall also attached his administrative charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Right-to-Sue notice he received, which is required before filing discrimination lawsuits in federal court.
Hall points to a subsequent incident on October 23, 2025—more than a year after his termination—where another worker allegedly recorded visible smoke from a forklift battery at the same facility. An internal HD Supply incident report dated October 28, 2025 describing that event is included in Hall’s exhibits as evidence of ongoing safety problems.
Separately, OSHA’s public enforcement database lists a complaint inspection for “Hd Supply Facilities Maintenance, Ltd.” at 2100 Anvil Block Road in Forest Park—the same address as the GA02 warehouse. The inspection opened May 6, 2024, with forklift-related violations cited. OSHA issued citations and monetary penalties that were later addressed through an informal settlement. This OSHA record does not prove Hall’s specific allegations but confirms government safety enforcement at the facility during the relevant timeframe.
What HD Supply’s Defense Arguments Are
HD Supply has filed an Answer denying Hall’s allegations but specific defense arguments are not fully detailed in publicly available documents. The company’s partial motion to dismiss targets Hall’s state law claims, arguing they should be dismissed as a matter of legal sufficiency without reaching the question of what actually happened.
HD Supply denies any wrongdoing and has not admitted liability. The company has not yet publicly presented its version of the June 27, 2024 incident, Hall’s job performance, or the reasons for his termination. In typical employment cases, employers often argue that workplace decisions were based on legitimate business reasons unrelated to discrimination—such as performance issues, policy violations, or economic factors.
What Damages Are Being Sought
Hall is seeking at least $50 million in damages, including compensatory damages (money to compensate for actual losses like lost wages, medical expenses, and emotional distress), punitive damages (additional money designed to punish wrongdoing and deter future violations), and liquidated damages where applicable under federal statutes.
Hall has requested a jury trial on all claims eligible for jury determination. Federal employment discrimination laws allow for uncapped compensatory and punitive damages in certain cases, particularly under Section 1981 for race discrimination claims.
What the Timeline Is
The case is currently in the early motion-to-dismiss phase. Key upcoming events include:
- The court must rule on HD Supply’s partial motion to dismiss Hall’s state law claims
- If claims survive dismissal, discovery deadlines will resume 30 days after that ruling
- Discovery typically involves document requests, depositions of witnesses, and exchange of evidence
- After discovery, either party may file summary judgment motions asking the court to decide the case without a trial
- If the case proceeds to trial, a jury would hear evidence and decide the factual disputes
Employment discrimination cases typically take 1 to 3 years from filing to resolution, whether through settlement, summary judgment, or trial. There is no current settlement or trial date scheduled. The court has not ruled on the merits of any claims.
What You Must Know
Statute of Limitations for Employment Claims
If you experienced workplace discrimination, you generally have strict deadlines to act. For federal discrimination claims under Title VII or the ADA, you must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 180 days of the discriminatory act (or 300 days in states with their own fair employment agencies, like Georgia). After receiving a Right-to-Sue letter from the EEOC, you have 90 days to file a lawsuit in federal court. Missing these deadlines typically means losing your legal rights permanently.
The Difference Between OSHA Violations and Employment Lawsuits
OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) enforces workplace safety regulations and can inspect facilities, issue citations, and impose penalties on employers. However, OSHA enforcement is separate from individual employment lawsuits. An OSHA citation at a workplace does not automatically prove an employer violated employment discrimination laws, and the absence of OSHA action does not mean safety concerns were unfounded. Hall’s lawsuit is a civil case about employment discrimination and retaliation—not an OSHA enforcement action.
Understanding Pro Se Litigation
Hall is representing himself without an attorney. Pro se litigants (people who represent themselves in court) face significant challenges navigating complex federal civil procedure rules, evidence requirements, and legal standards. While anyone has the right to self-representation, employment discrimination cases involve technical legal requirements that experienced attorneys typically handle. Courts do not lower legal standards or provide legal advice to pro se litigants.
Recent Court Developments in January 2026
As of early January 2026, the court has not ruled on HD Supply’s partial motion to dismiss. Discovery remains stayed pending that ruling. No settlement discussions have been publicly disclosed. The case remains in active litigation with both parties engaged in motion practice.
What to Do Next
How to Determine If You Have a Claim
You may have an employment discrimination claim if you experienced adverse employment actions (termination, demotion, denial of promotion, harassment) that you believe were based on protected characteristics (race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability) or if you were retaliated against for reporting discrimination or safety violations.
Consider whether you can identify comparators—employees outside your protected class who were treated more favorably in similar situations. Document any disparate treatment, discriminatory comments, or patterns of unequal enforcement of workplace policies.
What Information to Gather
If you believe you have an employment discrimination claim, preserve evidence immediately:
- Employment records including offer letters, performance reviews, disciplinary notices, and termination documents
- Emails, text messages, and written communications with supervisors and HR
- Witness contact information for coworkers who observed discriminatory treatment
- Medical records documenting any work-related injuries and requested accommodations
- Pay stubs and documentation of lost wages
- Notes about discriminatory incidents with dates, times, locations, and people involved
Why Legal Consultation Is Important
Employment discrimination law involves complex procedural requirements, strict deadlines, and technical legal standards. An experienced employment attorney can evaluate whether your situation meets legal definitions of discrimination, assess the strength of potential claims, explain applicable statutes of limitations, handle EEOC charge filing procedures, and negotiate with employers or litigate if necessary.
Many employment attorneys offer free initial consultations and work on contingency (getting paid only if you win or settle). Consultation does not obligate you to hire an attorney or file a lawsuit.
Official Resources
- Court Docket: Case information for Hall v. HD Supply, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-06567, is available through PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) at pacer.gov
- EEOC Information: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidance on filing discrimination charges is available at eeoc.gov
- OSHA Enforcement Database: Workplace safety inspection records are searchable at osha.gov/pls/imis/establishment.html
- Georgia Commission on Equal Opportunity: State-level employment discrimination resources at gceo.georgia.gov
When Individual Legal Counsel Is Necessary
Consult an employment attorney immediately if:
- You are considering filing an EEOC charge or lawsuit
- You have received a Right-to-Sue letter from the EEOC
- Deadlines for filing are approaching
- You have been terminated and believe it was discriminatory or retaliatory
- You are facing workplace harassment or denial of reasonable accommodations
- You need to understand whether your situation constitutes legally actionable discrimination
Time is critical in employment cases because of strict filing deadlines.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the HD Supply lawsuit about?
The HD Supply lawsuit is a federal employment discrimination case filed by former warehouse worker Quinton J. Hall alleging that HD Supply discriminated against him based on race and disability, denied reasonable accommodations after a workplace injury, and retaliated against him for reporting safety concerns. Hall claims a forklift battery fire on June 27, 2024 caused a permanent back injury, after which HD Supply denied him light-duty work while providing such accommodations to white employees, then fired him approximately one month later.
Is this a class action lawsuit?
No, this is an individual lawsuit brought by Quinton J. Hall based on his specific employment experiences at HD Supply’s Forest Park, Georgia warehouse. It is not a class action representing multiple employees with similar claims.
What damages is Quinton Hall seeking?
Hall is seeking at least $50 million in damages, including compensatory damages for lost wages, medical expenses, and emotional distress, as well as punitive damages designed to punish HD Supply’s alleged wrongdoing and deter future discrimination.
Has HD Supply settled the lawsuit?
No. As of January 2026, no settlement has been reached. HD Supply has denied Hall’s allegations and is defending the lawsuit. The case is in early proceedings with the court considering HD Supply’s motion to dismiss certain claims.
What is the deadline to file similar claims?
Filing deadlines depend on when discriminatory acts occurred and which laws apply. For federal discrimination claims, you generally must file an EEOC charge within 180 or 300 days of the discriminatory act. If you believe you have experienced discrimination at HD Supply or any employer, consult an employment attorney immediately to understand applicable deadlines for your situation.
How do I know if I’m eligible to participate in this case?
This is not a class action, so other employees cannot join Hall’s individual lawsuit. If you are a current or former HD Supply employee who experienced discrimination, you would need to pursue your own EEOC charge and potential lawsuit through separate legal proceedings.
What evidence does Hall have to support his claims?
According to court documents, Hall’s complaint includes 17 notarized witness statements, photographs and videos allegedly showing forklift battery fires and smoke, internal incident reports, performance evaluations, EEOC documentation, and evidence of a subsequent forklift battery incident at the same facility in October 2025. The court has not yet determined whether this evidence proves Hall’s claims.
Last Updated: January 17, 2026
Disclaimer: This article provides general information about the Hall v. HD Supply lawsuit and should not be considered legal advice. Individual circumstances vary, and the court has not ruled on the truth or falsity of the allegations. Anyone considering legal action should consult with qualified employment law attorneys who can evaluate their specific situation.
If you believe you may have experienced workplace discrimination, retaliation, or denial of reasonable accommodations, consult with a qualified employment attorney to understand your legal rights and options. Time-sensitive filing deadlines may apply to your situation.
Stay informed, stay protected. — AllAboutLawyer.com
Meta Description: HD Supply lawsuit filed by Quinton Hall alleges forklift fire, discrimination, and retaliation at Georgia warehouse. $50M case ongoing in federal court—what workers need to know.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah