ATLANTA — A federal employment lawsuit against HD Supply, Inc. is testing how one of the country’s largest industrial distributors responds when a warehouse worker reports a potential safety hazard involving a forklift battery. The case, Hall v. HD Supply, Inc., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and forms part of broader media coverage of an HD Supply lawsuit connected to alleged warehouse safety issues, discrimination, and retaliation.
According to publicly available descriptions of the complaint, the plaintiff, former HD Supply warehouse worker Quinton J. Hall, alleges that a forklift battery at the company’s GA02 Forest Park distribution center reached abnormally high temperatures and emitted smoke during a shift in June 2024, creating what he viewed as a serious safety risk inside an active warehouse environment. Hall contends that he reported the overheating forklift battery as a safety concern and that the incident is central to his claims about an HD Supply unsafe warehouse at the Forest Park, Georgia location.
Industrial forklift batteries, particularly large lead‑acid units, can pose fire, explosion, and chemical‑exposure risks when overheated or improperly maintained, and OSHA guidance requires employers to implement safe procedures for charging, maintaining, and operating powered industrial trucks. While the complaint and secondary reports describe Hall’s version of events, the court has not determined what occurred inside the HD Supply GA02 facility.
Following the reported forklift battery incident, the HD Supply lawsuit alleges that Hall experienced adverse changes in his working conditions at the Forest Park warehouse. Public summaries of the complaint state that he claims increased scrutiny, unfavorable assignment decisions, and disciplinary actions that he says were inconsistent with his prior performance record as a forklift and put‑away operator.
Hall asserts that these alleged actions were taken because he reported a safety issue and later raised additional concerns, framing them as HD Supply retaliation rather than routine management decisions. Under federal law, including OSHA‑related whistleblower protections and employment discrimination statutes, workers generally are protected from retaliation for reporting workplace safety hazards or engaging in other forms of protected activity. HD Supply has filed an answer contesting the allegations and denying liability.
Retaliation claims under federal employment and safety law typically require a plaintiff to show three elements: engagement in protected activity (such as reporting a safety concern), an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two. Courts then evaluate whether the employer can demonstrate legitimate, non‑retaliatory reasons for its actions. Employment‑law commentators note that timeline evidence, internal documentation, and witness testimony often play a central role in how these cases are resolved.
The HD Supply lawsuit also fits within a wider pattern of claims in the warehouse and logistics sector, where rapid growth and high throughput have led to increased scrutiny of forklift incidents, equipment maintenance, and battery‑charging safety practices. OSHA inspection data show that powered‑industrial‑truck violations remain a recurring source of enforcement across distribution facilities nationwide.
Separate from Hall’s civil allegations, OSHA’s public enforcement database lists an inspection for “Hd Supply Facilities Maintenance, Ltd.” at 2100 Anvil Block Road, Forest Park, Georgia—the address associated with HD Supply’s GA02 warehouse. The OSHA entry identifies “Forklift” as an emphasis area and notes that the inspection opened in May 2024, resulting in citations and monetary penalties that were later adjusted through an informal settlement.
The OSHA record does not state whether HD Supply reported a specific forklift fire or whether the inspection relates directly to the incident described in Hall’s complaint. It does, however, document forklift‑related enforcement activity at the Forest Park site during a similar time period, providing independent context for safety discussions around the HD Supply GA02 facility.
Docket summaries indicate that Hall filed his federal complaint with a jury demand in November 2025, asserting claims including disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, along with state‑law theories. HD Supply has answered the complaint and submitted a partial motion to dismiss, asking the court to dismiss certain state‑law counts—such as wrongful termination and defamation—on legal‑pleading grounds while other portions of the HD Supply lawsuit continue.
At this stage, the court has not made factual findings regarding the alleged forklift battery overheating, HD Supply’s internal response, or the lawfulness of the company’s actions at the GA02 warehouse. As the case progresses through motion practice and potential discovery, additional filings may clarify how the incident was documented, whether any OSHA notifications or OSHA 300 log entries were made, and how those records relate to the legal claims on both sides.
For now, Hall v. HD Supply, Inc. remains an active HD Supply lawsuit in federal court, highlighting ongoing debates over warehouse safety, forklift battery risks, and the boundaries of lawful versus unlawful responses when employees report potential hazards.
