ATLANTA — Dec. 29, 2025 — HD Supply is defending a federal employment and civil-rights case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in which former warehouse employee Quinton J. Hall alleges a June 27, 2024 forklift battery fire at the company’s Forest Park, Georgia (GA02) facility caused a lasting back injury and set off a series of disputed workplace decisions. The lawsuit, Hall v. HD Supply, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-06567 (N.D. Ga.), remains at an early stage and the court has not ruled on the merits of the allegations.
According to public summaries describing the federal complaint, Hall alleges he started working at HD Supply’s GA02 warehouse in Forest Park, Georgia, initially through a temporary assignment and later as a regular employee. He describes his role as a forklift/put-away operator and alleges he was a high performer who worked overtime and received internal recognition.
The complaint summary identifies June 27, 2024 as the central workplace event. Hall alleges a forklift battery overheated and produced smoke on the warehouse floor, prompting the use of fire extinguishers. He contends the incident resulted in a significant back injury and ongoing symptoms, and that he sought modified duties or other adjustments afterward.
Allegations of an “unsafe warehouse” and management response
In the filing as publicly summarized, Hall frames the dispute as involving workplace safety and what he characterizes as an unsafe warehouse environment, particularly around forklift equipment and the company’s response to injuries and restrictions.
As part of that narrative, Hall’s public complaint summary also describes a dispute over access to lighter-duty work, including an enclosed light-duty area referred to in the summary as “the cage,” and alleges unequal treatment and escalating conflict leading up to the termination decision he challenges.
Because the case is in active litigation, these assertions are allegations attributed to the complaint and related public summaries, not findings of fact.
Separate from the lawsuit, OSHA’s public enforcement database lists a complaint inspection for Hd Supply Facilities Maintenance, Ltd. at 2100 Anvil Block Road, Forest Park, GA 30297 — the same Forest Park address referenced in public reporting about the facility. OSHA shows the inspection opened May 6, 2024, with an emphasis area listed as “Forklift.” OSHA
OSHA’s entry for inspection 1747660.015 reflects a violation summary totaling five initial violations (with later updates reflected in the database), along with penalty information and linked citation items.
One citation detail associated with the inspection references OSHA’s powered-industrial-truck standard (29 CFR 1910.178) and alleges that powered industrial trucks (forklifts) were left unattended under the criteria in 1910.178(m)(5)(ii), with OSHA’s description stating multiple forklifts/order pickers were observed running and unattended during a walk-around.
OSHA’s enforcement listings are distinct from the allegations in Hall’s complaint; OSHA’s database does not, by itself, establish the specific facts alleged in the lawsuit.
Based on what is visible in OSHA’s public enforcement database, the inspection record described above does not explicitly reference a June 27, 2024 forklift battery fire, and publicly posted OSHA enforcement listings do not clearly identify a separate OSHA enforcement action labeled to that date in the materials reviewed for this report.
At the same time, the presence or absence of an OSHA enforcement entry is not the same as OSHA recordkeeping on an employer’s internal logs. OSHA’s recordkeeping rule generally requires an employer to enter each recordable injury or illness on the OSHA 300 Log (and complete the OSHA 301 Incident Report) within seven calendar days of receiving information that a recordable injury or illness has occurred.
Public summaries of the complaint describe the HD Supply lawsuit as asserting multiple legal theories under federal civil-rights and disability laws, plus state-law claims. The publicly summarized allegations include:
The court has not made factual findings on these claims, and the allegations remain to be tested through motion practice, discovery, and any later proceedings.
Docket-tracker summaries cited in public reporting indicate the complaint was filed with a jury demand in mid-November 2025 and that HD Supply later appeared in the case and filed early-stage motion practice. The same public summaries describe a partial motion to dismiss as part of the initial litigation posture—an early request that certain claims be dismissed at the pleading stage rather than resolved on disputed facts.
What comes next in federal court
In typical federal practice, briefing on a partial motion to dismiss is followed by a written ruling that can narrow the case or allow challenged claims to proceed. If claims remain, the case generally moves into discovery (document exchange, depositions, and other evidence-gathering), followed by potential summary judgment motions or trial scheduling.
For now, the Hall v. HD Supply allegations remain allegations, and the HD Supply lawsuit will turn on the evidence developed in the court process and the court’s rulings on the legal sufficiency of the claims.
