HD Supply Update: Judge Anna W. Howard  Lets Plaintiff QUINTON HALL Amend Complaint in Federal Employment Case

ATLANTA — In an HD Supply Update drawing attention in HD Supply News, a federal magistrate judge, Anna W. Howard has granted plaintiff Quinton J. Hall permission to amend his complaint in an ongoing employment lawsuit against HD Supply, resetting the early procedural posture of the case and pausing the company’s partial bid to dismiss certain claims.​

According to a January 16, 2026, order summarized in public docket reports, U.S. Magistrate Judge Anna W. Howard granted Hall’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). The order directs Hall to file the amended complaint by February 2, 2026, and, in anticipation of the new pleading, denies HD Supply’s previously filed partial motion to dismiss as moot but without prejudice, preserving HD Supply’s ability to renew dismissal arguments once the amendment is on file or if the deadline is missed.​

HD Supply lawsuit background

Hall filed the federal lawsuit in November 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, in a case captioned Hall v. HD Supply, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-06567. Public summaries describe the HD Supply lawsuit as arising from workplace events at the company’s GA02 warehouse in Forest Park, Georgia, including an alleged June 27, 2024 forklift battery incident and subsequent employment decisions.​

Docket-tracking reports indicate that Hall asserts multiple federal employment claims—disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment—alongside state-law claims such as defamation and wrongful termination. HD Supply has denied wrongdoing and initially responded with a partial motion to dismiss aimed at several non-federal counts while the core workplace-discrimination allegations move forward.​

HD Supply Update: effect of the amendment order

The January 16 order aligns with common federal practice in employment cases, where courts generally allow at least one amended complaint early in litigation unless there is clear prejudice, undue delay, or bad faith. Granting leave to amend does not reflect any decision on the merits of Hall’s allegations or any finding of liability against HD Supply; instead, it positions the forthcoming amended complaint as the operative pleading once filed.​

After Hall files his amended complaint, HD Supply will be entitled to respond under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which may include filing a renewed motion to dismiss focused on the updated allegations or filing an answer and allowing the HD Supply lawsuit to proceed into discovery. The order also imposes a firm February 2 deadline, after which HD Supply could ask the court to revisit dismissal arguments based on the original complaint if the amendment is not timely filed.​

What comes next in this HD Supply News story? 

Hall submits the amended complaint on time, the HD Supply case is expected to move forward on that revised filing, and the court may issue an updated scheduling order governing motion practice and discovery. Discovery in this type of HD Supply employment lawsuit typically involves exchanging documents, taking depositions, and gathering evidence regarding the reported forklift incident, any requested accommodations, workplace communications, and the reasons for Hall’s termination.​

The HD Supply lawsuit remains in its early stages, and no trial date has been set. As of this HD Supply Update, all allegations in Hall v. HD Supply, Inc. remain unproven, and public reporting indicates that HD Supply has not issued separate public statements about the January 16 order beyond its court filings.​ Contributor: Todd Richardson

Published on January 18,  2026