Quinton J. Hall alleges a forklift battery explosion, discrimination, and retaliation inside HD Supply’s GA02 Forest Park facility.

ATLANTA, Georgia — What began as a routine warehouse shift in June 2024 at HD Supply’s Forest Park, Georgia, distribution center has now become the centerpiece of a $50 million federal lawsuit that could put one of the nation’s largest industrial distributors under intense scrutiny.

According to a federal civil complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, former warehouse worker Quinton J. Hall alleges that a malfunctioning forklift battery inside HD Supply’s GA02 facility first smoked, then overheated, and ultimately exploded — leaving him disoriented, exposed to fumes, and with a serious permanent back injury. What the federal complaint that was filed on November 14, 2025, describes next is not support or protection, but a cascade of decisions that stripped him of his job, income, and sense of safety. 

Hall, who is representing himself pro se, alleges in his federal complaint that HD Supply runs an unsafe warehouse and then failed him at the moment he needed protection most. He says the company refused to place him on light-duty work even after he obtained medical documentation—records he notes were delayed only because HD Supply was waiting on drug-test results from Concentra Urgent Care, following the June 27, 2024, forklift battery eruption. According to Hall, other injured non-black employees were given light-duty assignments in the “cage,” but he was not, despite his documented back injury. According to the federal complaint, Hall insists that HD Supply was given a clear choice—and chose the wrong one. Rather than honor his doctor’s orders and provide a genuine accommodation, he alleges the company reassigned him to “put away” work that required him to push and pull a manual pallet jack—typically weighing between 150 and 200 pounds—up and down the warehouse pathways. Exactly the kind of physical strain his medical provider had warned could worsen his condition instead of heal it. Hall contends that this was not a misunderstanding, but a direct contradiction of the medical guidance HD Supply had in hand. 

Instead of reducing his workload or removing him from tasks that aggravated his injury, the complaint says, HD Supply effectively tested his limits, sending him back onto the floor in a role that intensified his pain day after day. Hall asserts that this decision did not just delay his recovery—it helped cement a permanent back injury he now carries into every part of his life, turning what should have been a path to healing into ongoing physical and emotional damage that he argues was both foreseeable and avoidable. 

As an HD Supply forklift operator injured on the job who dared to challenge what he saw as unfair treatment, Hall says the situation quickly escalated. The complaint alleges that days followed after the forklift incident, a supervisor confronted him and accused him of “faking” his back injury, then repeated that accusation to coworkers on the warehouse floor. Hall claims those comments sparked damaging rumors, leaving him feeling humiliated, singled out, and increasingly isolated in the same workplace where he says he had once been viewed as a trusted, high-performing member of the team. That’s when Hall began building a paper trail—filing formal complaints with HD Supply Human Resources about the supervisor, who Hall reported had spread rumors and false accusations, making it a hostile work environment, and carefully keeping copies of each report for his own records. A steadily expanding roster of witnesses has become a central pillar of Hall’s case. According to court filings, multiple current and former coworkers report that they saw critical moments unfold before, during, and after the alleged forklift battery eruption timeline incident. 

Federal Lawsuit — Hall v. HD Supply, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-06567 (N.D. Ga.) — Hall now seeks at least $50 million in damages, presenting the lawsuit as a pivotal test of HD Supply’s commitment to workplace safety, lawful treatment of employees, and the most basic standard of dignity behind the walls of HD Supply’s GA02 Forest Park distribution center . 

At this stage, the complaint reflects Hall’s allegations. HD Supply has not yet filed its response in the court record, and no court has ruled on the merits of its claims. 

From Temp Worker to Trusted Operator 

Hall’s lawsuit traces his path inside HD Supply back to October 2023, when he joined the company’s distribution center as a temporary worker on the “put-away” team. By March 2024, he had been converted to a regular full-time employee. 

According to the complaint, Hall quickly earned a reputation as a strong performer. He alleges that he:

• Consistently met or exceeded productivity and safety expectations

• Worked frequent overtime when requested

• Received internal recognition and positive feedback

Federal Complaint describes Halls as one of the most dependable forklift and put-away operators in his department — someone trusted with high-priority warehouse tasks and able to perform under pressure. That trajectory, he says, changed overnight after a single incident on the warehouse floor. 

The Forklift Battery Incident at GA02

The heart of Hall’s lawsuit is a June 27, 2024, incident involving a forklift and an allegedly overheating battery at HD Supply’s GA02 Forest Park distribution center.

According to the complaint, Hall was operating a forklift when he noticed excessive heat and smoke coming from the battery compartment. He alleges the situation escalated until the battery erupted — a sudden failure complaint described as a forklift fire or explosion — sending smoke and fumes into an active work area. 

Federal complaint says he was forced to grab two fire extinguishers and fight the fire inside the warehouse aisle, surrounded by racks of inventory and other workers. He contends that the blast, the physical strain of responding, and the smoke exposure left him disoriented and caused a serious back injury that has never fully resolved. 

Complaint says his supervisor ordered him to undergo an immediate drug test at Concentra Urgent Care—a directive he found deeply troubling, coming just moments after the fire was extinguished and firefighters arrived on the scene, when his request for medical evaluation for his own injuries had allegedly been denied.

A few days later, on or about July 1, 2024, Hall says his supervisor acknowledged the incident during a one-on-one conversation and told him, “You did all you could do, I’m just glad you’re ok.” Hall cites that statement as evidence that management understood both the seriousness of the safety event and the fact that he had been injured.

The complaint characterizes this moment as both a personal turning point and a snapshot of broader safety issues at the GA02 facility. Hall says photo and video exhibits show flames or smoke associated with batteries and charging equipment, including an image of a warehouse charger registering around 158°F.

After the incident, Hall alleges he reported ongoing symptoms and requested reasonable accommodations, including modified duties that would be more compatible with his physical limitations.

“The Cage” and Claims of Unequal Treatment

 central pillar of Hall’s discrimination theory, is what he describes as unequal access to light-duty work following his injury. 

According to the complaint, HD Supply maintained an enclosed light-duty area on the warehouse floor, informally referred to by workers as “the cage.” Employees with medical restrictions, Hall says, were sometimes assigned there to perform less physically demanding tasks. 

Hall alleges that:

• Other non-black employees with physical restrictions were given cage assignments and lighter duties

• He, despite reporting a back injury and requesting accommodation, was denied comparable light-duty work

• Instead, he was directed to carry out more strenuous tasks while still recovering

• Pushing the manual pallet Jack that weighs from 150 lb to 200 lb

To support this claim, Hall says he preserved publicly available social-media footage showing non-black employees performing lighter tasks inside the cage while he, despite his documented injury, was assigned heavier work elsewhere. He argues that the contrast — particularly in a context he frames as involving race and disability — supports an inference of discrimination and pretext under federal civil-rights laws. 

Rising Tension and the July 25 Termination 

complaint alleges that Hall’s relationship with management deteriorated sharply in July 2024. 

On or about July 23, 2024, Hall describes a “hostile confrontation” with a supervisor from another department. Around that time, he says, he raised concerns about unfair treatment and ongoing safety issues inside the GA02 facility. 

The next day, according federal complaint, the same supervisor allegedly made comments about him to coworkers after learning he had filed a written complaint about her conduct. Hall cites a notarized witness affidavit that he says recounts statements suggesting retaliation — including a warning that he would “get what’s coming.”

Two days later, on July 25, 2024, Hall was terminated.

The complaint recounts a phone call in which a company representative allegedly told Hall he was being fired for an “outburst” with the supervisor on July 23. When he asked what he had supposedly done or said, Hall’s supervisor allegedly responded that she did not know because she “wasn’t back there when it happened.”

Hall argues that this admission shows no proper factual investigation was conducted before he was fired. He characterizes the stated reason for his termination as a pretext — a cover story, he says, for unlawful discrimination and retaliation after he raised concerns about safety, harassment, and fairness at the HD Supply GA02 warehouse.

Safety Concerns After Hall Left

Hall’s employment ended in July 2024, but his complaint contends that equipment and battery hazards persisted at the same facility. 

On October 23, 2025, more than a year after his termination, a former coworker allegedly recorded visible smoke coming from a forklift battery compartment inside the GA02 distribution center. An internal incident report dated October 28, 2025, describing that event is attached as one of Hall’s exhibits. 

Hall points to this later episode as corroboration of what he says he tried to flag while he was still employed: ongoing battery and charging issues that, in his view, created continuing risks for workers inside what he now describes as an unsafe HD Supply warehouse. 

Pain, Loss, and the $50 Million Demand

According to the complaint, Hall is asking the court to award no less than $50 million in damages, a figure he says reflects the full scope of harm he alleges he has suffered — not a number “pulled out of thin air.”

He breaks that demand into several categories: 

Back Pay and Lost Wages

Hall contends he lost his primary source of income the day HD Supply terminated him in July 2024. Since then, he says, he has been unable to secure a new job despite submitting more than 300 applications and meticulously logging each effort in a mitigation record. The paychecks, overtime earnings, and benefits he would have received but for his termination form a major component of his back-pay claim. 

Front Pay and Reduced Earning Capacity

Looking ahead, Hall alleges that a permanent back injury and documented medical restrictions now limit the types of physically demanding warehouse roles he can safely perform. He argues that the impact reaches far beyond today’s paycheck, shrinking his long-term earning power and narrowing the kinds of jobs he can realistically pursue for years to come. 

Medical and Psychological Harm

The complaint cites evaluations from medical and mental-health professionals who, Hall says, diagnosed him with severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder, and severe anxiety, alongside orthopedic findings of a permanent partial disability. He argues that past and future treatment costs — and the daily realities of living with chronic pain and psychological symptoms — must be built into any damages calculation. 

Emotional Distress and Loss of Enjoyment of Life

Hall also asks the court to account for the human cost that doesn’t show up on a medical bill. He alleges that the combination of the forklift incident, the denial of accommodations, and the manner of his termination has left him living with fear, humiliation, sleepless nights, and a persistent sense that his life has been knocked off course. Those intangible harms — emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life — form another layer of the relief he seeks. 

Punitive Damages

Finally, Hall is not asking only to be made whole. He claims HD Supply acted with “malice or reckless indifference” toward his federally protected rights and urges the court to award punitive damages to punish and deter what his federal complaint describes as discrimination, retaliation, and serious safety failures. That punitive component, he says, is a key reason the overall demand reaches the $50 million mark — and, depending on what emerges in discovery, could justify an even higher award. 

Taken together, Hall’s request is framed as a blend of lost income, future economic harm, medical and psychological fallout, and a punitive message he wants a jury to send to one of the country’s largest industrial distributors. 

The Legal Framework: Civil Rights, Disability, and State Law 

Hall’s lawsuit rests on a multi-layered legal structure that combines federal civil-rights statutes with state-law tort claims. Among the causes of action, he asserts:

• Race discrimination in violation of federal civil-rights statutes, based on alleged disparate treatment and termination

• Hostile work environment, alleging severe or pervasive conduct tied to race and disability

• Retaliation, claiming HD Supply punished him for complaining about discrimination and safety issues

• Disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, alleging the company did not reasonably adjust his duties after his back injury

• Retaliation and interference under federal disability law

• A claim under a federal statute that allows uncapped compensatory and punitive damages in certain race-discrimination cases

• Defamation under Georgia law, based on alleged statements that he was “faking” his injury

• A state-law wrongful termination / retaliatory discharge theory, pled in the alternative

Hall demands a jury trial on all issues that can be decided by a jury and explicitly seeks compensatory, punitive, and, where applicable, liquidated damages. 

A Pro Se Case with Unusual Documentation

Unlike many pro se employment cases, which are often filed with limited backup, Hall’s complaint is paired with an unusually large exhibit set. 

According to the filing, his evidence includes:

• His administrative charge and Right-to-Sue notice from a federal civil-rights agency

• Internal performance awards and positive evaluations

• Seventeen notarized witness affidavits

• Safety complaints and incident reports related to forklift batteries and charging equipment

• Photo and video evidence of smoke and alleged overheating equipment

• Medical records, psychological evaluations, and disability notices

• A detailed job-search mitigation log

• Comparator evidence, including images and footage that Hall says show other employees receiving lighter “cage” assignments while he continued heavier work

• Internal incident reports documenting the forklift battery event

Hall argues this documentary record will show that HD Supply’s justifications are unfounded and that the company’s conduct was carried out with “malice or reckless indifference” to his rights — language that mirrors the legal standard for punitive damages in many federal discrimination cases. 

Inside HD Supply: Company Overview

While Hall’s lawsuit focuses on a single facility and one worker’s experience, it targets a major player in the industrial-supply market. 

Founded in 1974, HD Supply has grown into one of the United States’ largest industrial distributors, serving construction, maintenance, and institutional customers nationwide. The company’s business segments include:

• HD Supply HVAC products and systems

• HD Supply flooring materials and installation supplies

• HD Supply appliances for multifamily, hospitality, and commercial properties

• HD Supply facility maintenance, inventory and repair solutions

Through its e-commerce platform — often referred to as HD Supply online shopping — the company serves contractors, government agencies, property managers, and maintenance professionals across the country. HD Supply also offers HD Supply net 30 accounts, a trade-credit option that allows qualified customers to purchase materials on 30-day invoicing, a tool widely used in construction and property-management sectors.

HD Supply operates numerous locations nationwide and employs thousands of workers. Its HD Supply careers portal regularly advertises positions in logistics, warehouse operations, supply-chain management, sales, and corporate functions. 

For now, Hall’s account remains an allegation, and HD Supply will have the opportunity to respond — whether by challenging the complaint through early motions or by contesting the facts at trial. But as the case moves forward, it will test not only Hall’s claims about one forklift and one warehouse, but also broader questions about safety, accountability, and how far a single worker can go, alone, against a national industrial giant in federal court.

Tags: #QuintonJHall #HDSupply #WorkplaceSafety #EmploymentDiscrimination #TitleVII #ADA #Section1981 #Retaliation #CivilRights #WarehouseWorkers #HomeDepot #AtlantaNews #ProSeLitigant #FederalLawsuit #CorporateAccountability #50MillionLawsuit #ForkliftFire #JusticeForWorkers #hdsupplylawsuit #hdsupplysecuritiessettlement #hdsupplynetworth #GA02 #forestpark