HD Supply lawsuit: Company seeks partial dismissal as Hall alleges retaliation after GA02 forklift battery incident

ATLANTA — Dec. 23, 2025 — HD Supply, Inc. is defending a federal employment and civil-rights lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, where former warehouse worker Quinton J. Hall, proceeding without counsel, alleges discrimination and retaliation following a forklift battery incident at the company’s Forest Park distribution center. The case, Hall v. HD Supply, Inc., No. 1:25‑cv‑06567 (N.D. Ga.), focuses on claims that a June 27, 2024 incident involving an overheating forklift battery at the GA02 facility led to a lasting back injury and a series of contested workplace decisions concerning accommodations, job assignments, and Hall’s termination. The court has not ruled on the merits of Hall’s allegations, and HD Supply disputes the claims.

Alleged incident and workplace history at GA02

According to publicly available summaries of the complaint, Hall states that he began working at HD Supply’s Forest Park GA02 warehouse around October 2023 through a temporary staffing agency and converted to full‑time status in or around March 2024. He describes his role as a forklift and put‑away operator and characterizes his performance as strong, citing overtime work and internal recognition.

The complaint summary identifies June 27, 2024, as a central date in the HD Supply lawsuit. Hall alleges that on that day, a forklift battery overheated and emitted smoke on the warehouse floor, prompting him to use fire extinguishers to address the situation. He contends that the event resulted in a significant back injury and ongoing symptoms, after which he requested modified duties and other workplace adjustments consistent with medical guidance. Hall further alleges that he was not granted access to lighter‑duty work that he says was made available to other employees, including assignments in an enclosed light‑duty area referred to as “the cage.”

Public descriptions of the complaint indicate that Hall claims tensions increased in late July 2024 following a confrontation with a supervisor and subsequent internal complaints. He alleges that HD Supply terminated his employment on July 25, 2024, and he disputes the reasons he was given for his dismissal.

Claims asserted in the HD Supply lawsuit

Based on those public summaries, Hall’s lawsuit asserts multiple causes of action under federal civil-rights and disability statutes, as well as Georgia state law. The HD Supply lawsuit includes:

• Claims of disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and disability‑based retaliation under federal disability law, tied to Hall’s alleged back injury and his requests for modified job duties.
• Claims of race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under federal civil-rights statutes, based on assertions that Hall, who identifies as a member of a protected class, was treated less favorably than other employees in light‑duty assignments and in the handling of discipline and complaints.
• State‑law claims, including a Georgia defamation theory related to alleged statements about the legitimacy of Hall’s injury and a wrongful‑termination or retaliatory‑discharge theory pleaded under Georgia common law.

These descriptions reflect Hall’s allegations and theories; they are not findings by the court.

HD Supply’s answer and partial motion to dismiss

Court docket summaries indicate that Hall filed his complaint, including a demand for a jury trial, on Nov. 14, 2025. Subsequent entries show that service of process was recorded on Nov. 26, 2025, with an initial deadline of Dec. 17, 2025, for HD Supply to respond. HD Supply has since filed an Answer and Defenses, placing the allegations in dispute, and has also filed a brief in support of a partial motion to dismiss.

The partial motion to dismiss is an early procedural step in which HD Supply asks the court to dismiss certain claims—not the entire lawsuit—on the basis that, even if Hall’s factual allegations are taken as true at this stage, specific counts do not state a legally sufficient claim. In particular, HD Supply seeks dismissal of some state‑law theories, including a common‑law wrongful‑termination or retaliatory‑discharge count and a defamation claim, arguing that Georgia law and federal pleading standards do not support those causes of action as they are currently framed. The company does not, through this motion, ask the court to resolve factual disputes about the forklift incident itself.​

A court order noted in the docket references the pending motion‑to‑dismiss posture and addresses routine administrative requirements under local rules, including the filing of a certificate of interested persons.

Next steps in the HD Supply litigation

In typical federal practice, a partial motion to dismiss in an employment and civil‑rights case such as Hall v. HD Supply is followed by briefing from both parties and a written ruling from the court. The court may grant the motion in whole or in part, thereby dismissing some claims, or deny it and allow those claims to proceed. If any claims remain after the ruling, the HD Supply lawsuit would generally move into discovery, including document exchanges, depositions of HD Supply personnel and other witnesses, and the gathering of additional evidence.

Depending on the outcome of discovery, the parties may file motions for summary judgment, seek settlement, or proceed toward trial. At this stage, HD Supply remains an active defendant, and all claims in Hall v. HD Supply, Inc.—including those challenged by the partial motion to dismiss—are allegations only. The court has not made factual determinations about the forklift battery incident, workplace conditions at the GA02 Forest Park warehouse, or the lawfulness of HD Supply’s actions.