“Quinton J. Hall Alleges Safety Failures and Retaliation in $50 Million Complaint Against HD Supply.”
What began as a routine warehouse shift in June 2024 at HD Supply’s Forest Park, Georgia, distribution center has now erupted into a high-stakes federal civil-rights battle carrying a price tag of at least $50 million.
In a federal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, warehouse worker Quinton J. Hall alleges that a forklift he was operating on the GA02 warehouse floor began to malfunction — first smoking, then overheating, and ultimately exploding — releasing fumes that he says left him disoriented and with a serious back injury that has not healed.
What Hall describes next is not a recovery process, but a downward spiral: a denial of light-duty work, a pattern of humiliation and unequal treatment, and, finally, a firing he characterizes as retaliatory.
Those allegations form the core of Hall v. HD Supply, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-06567 (N.D. Ga.), a pro se federal lawsuit in which Hall, without an attorney, accuses one of the nation’s largest industrial distributors of discrimination, retaliation, and safety failures inside its warehouse.
According to the complaint, Hall’s case is about more than one worker’s job — it is framed as a fight over “safety and dignity behind warehouse walls” at a major national company.
At this stage, the claims are allegations, not findings. HD Supply has not yet filed its response in the court record, and no court has ruled on the merits of Hall’s accusations.
From Temp Hire to Trusted Operator
Hall traces his story back to October 2023, when he started at an HD Supply distribution center as a temporary worker on the warehouse “put-away” team. By March 2024, he had been converted to a regular full-time employee.
In the complaint, Hall portrays himself as a standout performer. He says he:
- Met or exceeded productivity and safety expectations
- Worked frequent overtime when needed
- Received internal recognition and positive feedback
He describes himself as one of the strongest forklift and put-away operators in the department — a worker trusted with high-priority tasks and viewed as reliable under pressure.
That trajectory, he contends, changed abruptly on a single June morning.
The June 27 Forklift Incident
The centerpiece of Hall’s lawsuit is a June 27, 2024 incident involving a forklift and an allegedly overheating battery on the warehouse floor.
According to the complaint, Hall was operating the forklift when he noticed excessive heat and visible smoke coming from the battery compartment. He alleges the situation escalated quickly, culminating in what he describes as an explosion that forced him to grab two fire extinguishers and fight the emergency inside the distribution center.
Hall says the event was far more than a scare. He claims the blast, heat, and fumes left him disoriented and caused a serious back injury that has continued to affect him.
The lawsuit calls this moment both a personal turning point and a window into broader safety issues at the facility. Hall says his exhibits include photo and video evidence of flames or smoke connected to battery and charging equipment, including an image of a charger reading roughly 158°F.
A few days later, on or about July 1, 2024, Hall says his 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 statement as proof that management knew about both the safety incident and his resulting injury.
He alleges that after the incident, he reported ongoing symptoms and requested reasonable accommodations, including modified duties tailored to his physical limitations.
“The Cage” and Claims of Unequal Treatment
A central pillar of Hall’s discrimination theory centers on what he calls unequal access to light-duty work after his injury.
According to the complaint, HD Supply maintained an enclosed light-duty area on the warehouse floor known informally among workers as “the cage.” Employees with medical restrictions, Hall says, were sometimes placed there to perform less physically demanding tasks.
Hall alleges that:
- Other workers with physical restrictions were given cage assignments and lighter duties
- He, despite reporting a back injury and requesting accommodations, was denied similar light-duty work
- Instead, he was directed to continue more strenuous tasks while still recovering
To support that claim, Hall says he preserved publicly available social-media footage that shows workers performing light-duty tasks inside the cage while he, allegedly injured, was assigned heavier work elsewhere. He argues that the contrast — particularly in the context of race and disability — supports an inference of discrimination and pretext under federal civil-rights law.
Rising Tension and a Sudden Firing
Hall’s complaint alleges that his relationship with management sharply deteriorated in July 2024.
On or about July 23, 2024, Hall describes a “hostile confrontation” with a supervisor from another department at the distribution center. Around this time, he says he raised internal complaints about unfair treatment and unresolved safety issues.
The following day, according to the complaint, that supervisor allegedly made comments about Hall to others after learning that he had filed a written complaint about her conduct. Hall cites a notarized witness affidavit that he says recounts statements implying retaliation — including a suggestion that he would “get what’s coming.”
Two days later, on July 25, 2024, Hall was out of work.
The complaint describes a phone call in which a company representative allegedly informed him he was being terminated for an “outburst” with the supervisor on July 23. When Hall asked what he had supposedly said or done, the representative allegedly answered that she did not know because she “wasn’t back there when it happened.”
Hall argues that this admission shows no proper investigation was conducted before he was fired. He points to that as evidence that the stated reason for his termination was a pretext — a cover for discrimination and retaliation tied to his safety complaints and accommodation requests.
Safety Issues After Hall’s Departure
Although Hall’s employment ended in July 2024, his complaint contends that similar equipment and battery issues persisted at the same facility.
On October 23, 2025, more than a year after his termination, a former co-worker allegedly recorded visible smoke coming from a forklift battery compartment inside the same Forest Park distribution center. An internal incident report dated October 28, 2025 about that event is included as one of Hall’s exhibits, according to the filing.
Hall presents this later episode as corroboration of the safety concerns he says he raised while employed — ongoing issues with equipment, batteries, and charging systems that he believes posed continuing risks to workers inside the warehouse.
Lasting Medical and Psychological Impact
The complaint devotes significant attention to what Hall says are the long-term physical and psychological consequences of the forklift incident and its aftermath.
According to the lawsuit, Hall was evaluated by a licensed psychologist who diagnosed:
- Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (severe)
- Major Depressive Disorder (severe)
- Severe anxiety, with documented functional limitations
Hall also cites an orthopedic evaluation that he says documented a lumbar injury and resulted in a permanent partial disability assessment. That work-status note, according to Hall, placed limits on the type of physical activities he should perform in any job.
Taken together, Hall claims these medical opinions show he has sustained a permanent injury that restricts his ability to work in physically demanding warehouse roles and has diminished his long-term earning potential.
Out of Work and Pain and Suffering
Since his termination on July 25, 2024, Hall alleges he has been unable to secure new employment despite what he describes as aggressive efforts to do so.
The complaint states that he has:
- Submitted more than 300 job applications
- Reached out to employers and recruiters
- Attended interviews and followed up on leads
- Maintained a detailed mitigation log documenting his job search
Hall argues this record shows he has met his legal duty to mitigate damages. He contends his continued unemployment is driven by his injury, mental-health conditions, and the cloud surrounding his firing — not by any unwillingness to work.
He estimates his combined economic and non-economic losses — including back pay, front pay, lost benefits, medical expenses, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life — at not less than $50 million. According to the complaint, Hall’s figure could increase as discovery unfolds. According to the federal complaint, the fallout from Hall’s termination has been as financial as it is emotional. Hall alleges that losing his job at HD Supply cut off his primary source of income at the very moment his medical needs and daily limitations were increasing, leaving him unable to keep up with bills, basic living expenses, and long-term obligations. He says months of unemployment, despite submitting more than 300 job applications and documenting his efforts in a mitigation log, have deepened the strain, forcing him to confront not only back pain and psychological symptoms, but the fear of slipping further behind with each passing week. Hall describes the experience as an ongoing injury: the loss of wages, benefits, and career stability compounded by sleepless nights, anxiety about the future, and the sense that his reputation has been damaged in a way that makes every new job search feel like an uphill battle.
The Legal Claims: A Multi-Layered Case
Hall’s lawsuit is built on a broad legal framework that blends federal civil-rights laws with state-law tort claims.
According to the complaint, his causes of action include:
- Race discrimination, based on alleged disparate treatment and termination in violation of federal civil-rights statutes
- 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 concerns
- 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, in certain race-discrimination cases, allows for uncapped compensatory and punitive damages
- Defamation under Georgia law, based on alleged statements that he was “faking” his injury
- A state-law wrongful termination / retaliatory discharge claim, pled in the alternative
Hall demands a jury trial on all triable claims and expressly seeks compensatory, punitive, and, where applicable, liquidated damages.
A Pro Se Case With Unusual Documentation
Many pro se employment cases are filed with minimal supporting documentation. Hall’s complaint, by contrast, is paired with an extensive exhibit list.
According to the federal complaint, Hall’s 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 describing the forklift battery event
Hall argues this record will show that HD Supply’s stated reasons for its actions are unsupported and that the company acted with “malice or reckless indifference” to his rights — language that tracks the legal standard for punitive damages in many federal discrimination cases.
A Major Distributor Under Legal Scrutiny
While the lawsuit zeroes in on a single warehouse and a single worker, it targets a major national distributor.
Founded in 1974, HD Supply has grown into one of the largest industrial distributors in the United States, serving construction, maintenance, and institutional customers. Its 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 nationwide. It 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.
HD Supply operates numerous locations across the country and employs thousands of workers in logistics, warehouse operations, supply-chain management, sales, and other roles.
