From Battling a Forklift Fire to Battling HD Supply Holding inc. in Federal Court

Documents filed in court claim that what began as a routine warehouse shift on June 27, 2024, at HD Supply’s GA02 Forest Park distribution center has, according to a federal complaint, become the center of a $50 million lawsuit that could place one of the country’s largest industrial distributors under intense legal and public scrutiny. 

According to the lawsuit filed November 14, 2025, 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 began smoking, overheated, and ultimately erupted on the warehouse floor. Hall says the incident left him disoriented, exposed to fumes, and suffering from a serious back injury that he describes as permanent. What followed, the complaint contends, was not care or protection, but a series of decisions that stripped him of his job, his income, and his sense of safety at work. 

Hall, who is representing himself pro se, alleges that HD Supply operated an unsafe warehouse and failed him at the moment he most needed accommodation. He claims the company refused to place him on light-duty work even after he obtained medical documentation—records he says were delayed only because HD Supply was waiting on drug-test results from Concentra Urgent Care following the June 27, 2024, forklift battery incident. According to the complaint, non-Black coworkers with injuries received light-duty “cage” assignments, but Hall did not, despite his documented back condition. 

Hall alleges that HD Supply was presented with a clear choice and “chose the wrong one.” Rather than honor his doctor’s restrictions and provide a meaningful accommodation, he says the company reassigned him to “put-away” work that required him to push and pull a manual pallet jack weighing roughly 150 to 200 pounds up and down warehouse pathways—precisely the type of strain his medical provider allegedly warned would worsen, not heal, his injury. Hall characterizes this not as a misunderstanding but as a direct contradiction of medical guidance the company already had in its possession. 

Instead of reducing his workload or removing him from tasks that aggravated his condition, the complaint alleges, HD Supply tested his limits, sending him back onto the floor in a role that intensified his pain day after day. Hall maintains that this decision did more than delay his recovery; he contends it helped cement a permanent back injury that now affects every part of his life, turning what should have been a path to healing into ongoing physical and emotional harm he claims was both foreseeable and avoidable. 

As an HD Supply forklift operator injured on the job who questioned what he viewed as unfair treatment, Hall alleges that the situation quickly escalated. The complaint states that in the days after the battery 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 fueled damaging rumors, leaving him feeling humiliated, singled out, and increasingly isolated in the same workplace where he says he had once been regarded as a trusted, high-performing employee. 

In response, Hall says he began building a paper trail—filing formal complaints with HD Supply’s Human Resources department about the supervisor he alleges spread false accusations and created a hostile work environment, and carefully keeping copies of each complaint for his own records. According to the filings, a steadily growing list of witnesses has since become a central pillar of his case. Multiple current and former coworkers, the complaint says, report having observed critical moments before, during, and after the alleged forklift battery eruption. 

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

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

From Temp Worker to “Go-To” Operator 

Hall’s complaint traces his path at HD Supply 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 regular full-time employee. 

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

• Consistently met or exceeded productivity and safety expectations

• Worked frequently overtime when requested

• Received internal recognition and positive feedback

The federal complaint describes Hall as one of the most dependable forklift and put-away operators in his department—trusted with high-priority warehouse tasks and relied upon under pressure. That trajectory, he says, changed abruptly after one incident on the warehouse floor.

The Forklift Battery Incident at GA02

The centerpiece 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 that the situation escalated until the battery erupted, a failure he describes as a forklift fire or explosion that sent smoke and fumes into an active work area. 

The filing states that Hall was forced to grab two fire extinguishers and battle the fire inside a warehouse aisle, surrounded by racks of inventory and other employees. He contends that the blast, the physical strain of responding to the fire, and the smoke exposure left him disoriented and caused a serious back injury that has never fully resolved. 

The complaint further alleges that, shortly after firefighters arrived and the flames were extinguished, Hall’s supervisor ordered him to undergo an immediate drug test at Concentra Urgent Care—a directive Hall says he found deeply troubling because it came at the very moment he was seeking medical evaluation for his own injuries, a request he claims had been denied. 

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

The complaint frames this moment as both a personal turning point for Hall and a snapshot of broader safety concerns at GA02. Hall says his exhibits include photo and video evidence of flames or smoke associated with battery and charging equipment, including an image of a warehouse charger allegedly registering around 158°F. 

After the incident, Hall alleges, he reported ongoing symptoms and requested reasonable accommodations, including modified duties better suited to his physical limitations.

“The Cage” and Alleged Unequal Treatment

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

According to the complaint, HD Supply maintained an enclosed light-duty section on the warehouse floor informally known among workers as “the cage.” Employees with medical restrictions, he says, were sometimes assigned to the cage 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 accommodations, was denied comparable light-duty work

• Instead, he was directed to perform more strenuous tasks while still recovering, including pushing and pulling a manual pallet jack weighing an estimated 150 to 200 pounds

To support this claim, Hall asserts that he preserved publicly available social-media footage showing non-Black employees performing lighter work inside the cage, while he—though injured and medically restricted—was assigned heavier tasks elsewhere in the warehouse. He argues that this contrast, in a context he expressly frames as involving both race and disability, supports an inference of unlawful discrimination and pretext under federal civil-rights laws. 

Rising Tension and the July 25 Termination 

Complaint allege 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 same time, he says, he raised concerns about unfair treatment and ongoing safety issues at the GA02 facility. 

The following day, according to the complaint, the supervisor allegedly made comments about Hall to coworkers after learning he had filed a written complaint about her conduct. Hall cites a notarized witness affidavit that he says describes 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 that, in a phone call informing him of his termination, a company representative allegedly told Hall 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 he was fired. He characterizes the stated reason for his termination as a pretext—a cover, he says, for unlawful discrimination and retaliation after he raised concerns about safety, harassment, and fairness inside HD Supply’s GA02 warehouse. 

Safety Concerns After Hall’s Departure

According to the lawsuit, 

Hall’s employment ended in July 2024; his complaint contends that equipment and battery problems continued 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, according to the complaint. 

Hall points to this later episode as corroboration of what he says he tried to raise while employed—ongoing battery and charging hazards that, in his view, posed continuing risks to workers in what he now calls an unsafe HD Supply warehouse. 

Pain, Loss, and the $50 Million Demand

According to the complaint, Hall asks the court to award no less than $50 million in damages, a figure he says reflects the full scope of the harm he alleges he has suffered rather than a number “pulled out of thin air.”

He breaks that request 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 claims he would have received absent the termination form a major component of his back-pay demand.

Front Pay and Reduced Earning Capacity
Looking ahead, Hall alleges that his permanent back injury and documented medical restrictions now limit the kinds of physically demanding warehouse jobs he can safely perform. He argues that the impact reaches far beyond his current income, shrinking his long-term earning power and narrowing the range 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 asserts that both past and future treatment costs—and the daily realities of living with chronic pain and psychological symptoms—must be factored into any damages calculation. 

Emotional Distress and Loss of Enjoyment of Life
Hall also asks the court to account for harm that does not appear on a medical bill. He alleges that the combination of the forklift incident, the denial of accommodations, and the circumstances of his termination have left him living with fear, humiliation, sleepless nights, and a persistent sense that his life has been knocked off course. These 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 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 frames his damages request as a blend of lost income, future economic harm, medical and psychological fallout, and a punitive message he hopes a jury will send to one of the nation’s largest industrial distributors.

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

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

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

• 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 triable by jury and expressly seeks compensatory, punitive, and, where applicable, liquidated damages. 

A Pro Se Case with an Unusually Robust Record

Unlike many pro se employment lawsuits, which are often filed with minimal documentation, Hall’s complaint is paired with a substantial 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 that this documentary record will show that HD Supply’s stated reasons for its actions 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

While Hall’s lawsuit focuses on one 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 lines 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 lists openings in logistics, warehouse operations, supply-chain management, sales, and corporate roles. 

Conclusion 

For now, Hall’s account remains an allegation, and HD Supply will have the opportunity to respond—whether by seeking early dismissal, challenging the facts in discovery, or contesting the claims at trial. As Hall v. HD Supply, Inc. moves forward, it is poised to test not only one worker’s claims about a forklift, a battery, and a warehouse floor, but also broader questions about safety, accountability, and how far a single employee can push a national industrial giant in federal court. Contributor: Todd Richardson

Published on December  7,  2025