Pro se lawsuit alleges a forklift battery eruption, racial bias in light-duty assignments, and retaliation inside what Hall calls an “unsafe” HD Supply GA02 facility.
ATLANTA, Georgia — What began as an ordinary June 2024 warehouse shift at HD Supply’s GA02 Forest Park distribution center is now the subject of a $50 million federal lawsuit that challenges the safety culture and employment practices of one of the nation’s largest industrial distributors. In a 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 at the GA02 facility smoked, overheated, and ultimately erupted on the warehouse floor, leaving him disoriented, exposed to fumes, and with a serious permanent back injury.
Hall, who is representing himself pro se, contends that what followed the June 27, 2024 incident was not support but a cascade of decisions that cost him his job, his income, and his sense of safety. In the complaint, filed November 14, 2025, he accuses HD Supply of operating an unsafe warehouse and failing him at the moment he most needed protection. He alleges that despite obtaining medical documentation of his back injury—records he says were delayed because the company was waiting for drug-test results from Concentra Urgent Care—HD Supply refused to place him on light-duty work.
According to a federal complaint, non-Black employees with injuries were assigned to an enclosed light-duty area on the warehouse floor known as “the cage,” where they performed less strenuous tasks. He asserts that, in contrast, he was denied similar accommodations despite documented restrictions. Instead, the complaint states, HD Supply reassigned him to “put-away” duties requiring him to push and pull a manual pallet jack, typically weighing between 150 and 200 pounds, up and down warehouse aisles—precisely the kind of strain his medical provider had warned would aggravate his condition. Hall frames this not as a misunderstanding but as a direct contradiction of medical guidance the company already had in hand.
Rather than reducing his workload or shielding him from tasks that intensified his pain, Hall alleges, the company effectively tested his limits by sending him back to the floor in a role that worsened his injury day after day. He contends that this decision did more than delay his recovery; it helped cement a permanent back injury that now affects every part of his life, converting what should have been a path toward healing into ongoing physical and emotional harm he argues was both foreseeable and avoidable.
The complaint describes a workplace climate that deteriorated rapidly once Hall began challenging how he was treated. In the days after the forklift event, he alleges, a supervisor confronted him, accused him of “faking” his back injury, and repeated that accusation to coworkers, fueling rumors that left him humiliated and isolated in a warehouse where he says he had previously been regarded as a trusted, high-performing operator. In response, Hall says he began documenting events, filing formal complaints with HD Supply’s Human Resources department about the supervisor’s alleged rumor-spreading and hostile conduct, and keeping copies of each report.
Court filings indicate that multiple current and former coworkers have come forward, saying they observed key moments before, during, and after the battery incident and its aftermath. Hall’s lawsuit, captioned Hall v. HD Supply, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-06567 (N.D. Ga.), seeks at least $50 million in damages and casts the case as a test of HD Supply’s commitment to workplace safety, lawful treatment of employees, and basic dignity behind the walls of the GA02 Forest Park distribution center. At this stage, the complaint reflects Hall’s allegations; HD Supply has not yet filed its response, and no court has ruled on the merits of his claims.
Hall’s filing traces his relationship with the company back to October 2023, when he joined GA02 as a temporary worker on the “put-away” team. By March 2024, he had been converted to a full-time employee. The complaint portrays him as a strong performer who consistently met or exceeded productivity and safety expectations, worked frequent overtime when requested, and received internal recognition and positive feedback. It describes him as one of the most dependable forklift and put-away operators in his department—a worker trusted with high-priority tasks and able to perform under pressure—until a single incident on the warehouse floor altered his trajectory.
The heart of that trajectory change is the June 27, 2024 forklift battery incident. Hall alleges he was operating a forklift when he noticed excessive heat and smoke coming from the battery compartment and that the situation escalated until the battery erupted, described in the complaint as a fire or explosion that sent smoke and fumes into an active work area. He says he grabbed two fire extinguishers and fought the fire in an aisle lined with racks of inventory and surrounded by other workers, and that the blast, the physical effort, and the smoke exposure left him disoriented and caused a back injury that has never fully resolved.
According to the complaint, once the fire was extinguished and firefighters arrived, his supervisor ordered him to undergo an immediate drug test at Concentra Urgent Care, a directive Hall says he found troubling because it came at a moment when he believed his own request for medical evaluation had been denied. A few days later, on or about July 1, 2024, Hall says the supervisor acknowledged the incident in a one-on-one conversation and told him, “You did all you could do, I’m just glad you’re ok,” a remark Hall cites as evidence that management understood both the seriousness of the safety event and his injury. He further alleges that photo and video exhibits show flames or smoke involving batteries and charging equipment, including an image of a warehouse charger reading about 158 degrees Fahrenheit.
A central pillar of Hall’s discrimination theory is what he describes as unequal access to light-duty work after his injury. He alleges that HD Supply maintained an enclosed light-duty zone, informally called “the cage,” where employees with medical restrictions performed less physically demanding tasks. According to the complaint, non-Black employees with similar physical limitations were given cage assignments and lighter duties, while Hall, despite reporting a back injury and requesting accommodation, was denied comparable treatment and was instead directed to keep performing strenuous work, including pushing a manual pallet jack weighing 150 to 200 pounds while still recovering. To support this claim, Hall says he preserved publicly available social-media footage showing non-Black employees working on lighter tasks inside the cage while he, with documented restrictions, was assigned heavier work elsewhere. He argues that this contrast, viewed through the lens of race and disability, supports an inference of discrimination and pretext under federal civil-rights laws.
Tensions with management allegedly intensified in July 2024. Hall describes a “hostile confrontation” with a supervisor from another department on or about July 23, 2024, around the same time he says he raised concerns about unfair treatment and ongoing safety issues inside the GA02 facility. The next day, according to the complaint, that 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 him he was being fired for an “outburst” with the supervisor on July 23. When Hall asked what he had supposedly done or said, the representative 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 his termination and characterizes the stated reason as pretext—a cover for unlawful discrimination and retaliation after he raised concerns about safety, harassment, and fairness at the GA02 warehouse.
Hall maintains that safety problems at the facility did not end with his departure. His complaint points to an October 23, 2025 incident in which a former coworker allegedly recorded visible smoke coming from a forklift battery compartment inside the same distribution center. An internal incident report dated October 28, 2025 describing that event is attached as one of Hall’s exhibits, according to the filing. Hall cites this later episode as corroboration of what he says he tried to flag while 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.
The lawsuit seeks no less than $50 million in damages, a sum Hall says reflects the full scope of harm he alleges he has suffered rather than a figure “pulled out of thin air.” He claims back pay and lost wages on the ground that he lost his primary source of income when HD Supply terminated him in July 2024 and that he has been unable to secure new employment despite submitting more than 300 applications and maintaining a detailed mitigation log. He seeks front pay and damages for reduced earning capacity, alleging that a permanent back injury and medical restrictions now limit the kinds of physically demanding warehouse work he can safely perform, shrinking his long-term earning power and narrowing his job prospects.
Hall also seeks compensation for 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 reality of chronic pain and psychological symptoms must be factored into any damages award. In addition, he asks the court to compensate him for emotional distress and loss of enjoyment of life, alleging that the forklift incident, denial of accommodations, and the manner of his termination left him living with fear, humiliation, sleepless nights, and a persistent sense that his life has been knocked off course.
On top of economic and non-economic damages, Hall seeks punitive damages, alleging that HD Supply acted with “malice or reckless indifference” toward his federally protected rights. He urges the court to award an amount that would punish and deter what the complaint describes as discrimination, retaliation, and serious safety failures. He identifies this punitive component as a key reason his demand reaches $50 million and suggests that, depending on what emerges in discovery, an even higher award could be warranted.
Legally, Hall’s case rests on a multi-layered framework blending federal civil-rights and disability statutes with state-law claims. The complaint asserts race discrimination based on alleged disparate treatment and termination, hostile work environment tied to race and disability, and retaliation for complaining about discrimination and safety issues. It also alleges disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, as well as retaliation and interference under federal disability law, and includes a claim under a federal statute that allows uncapped compensatory and punitive damages in certain race-discrimination cases. At the state level, Hall asserts defamation, based on alleged statements that he was “faking” his injury, and pleads a wrongful termination or retaliatory discharge theory in the alternative. He demands a jury trial on all issues triable by jury and explicitly seeks compensatory, punitive, and, where applicable, liquidated damages.
Hall’s status as a pro se litigant stands out in part because of the volume of supporting materials he has filed. According to the complaint, his exhibit set includes his administrative charge and Right-to-Sue notice from a federal civil-rights agency; internal performance awards and positive evaluations; 17 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 he says show other employees receiving lighter cage assignments while he continued heavier work; and internal incident reports documenting the forklift battery event. Hall argues that this documentary record will demonstrate that HD Supply’s stated 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.
All of this plays out against the backdrop of a major national 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 through business segments that include HVAC products and systems, flooring materials and installation supplies, appliances for multifamily, hospitality, and commercial properties, and facility maintenance inventory and repair solutions. Through an e-commerce platform commonly described as HD Supply online shopping, the company serves contractors, government agencies, property managers, and maintenance professionals, and it offers HD Supply net 30 accounts that allow qualified customers to purchase materials on 30-day invoicing. The company operates numerous locations nationwide, employs thousands of workers, and regularly advertises warehouse, logistics, supply-chain, sales, and corporate roles on its careers portal.
For now, Hall’s narrative remains an allegation, and HD Supply will have its opportunity to respond—whether through early motions attacking the legal claims or by contesting the facts if the case proceeds to trial. As the litigation moves forward, it will test not only Hall’s account of one forklift, one battery, and one Georgia warehouse, but also broader questions about safety, accountability, and how far a single worker can push a national industrial distributor 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 #