Overview of the HD Supply lawsuit
A federal employment lawsuit titled Hall v. HD Supply, Inc., Case No. 1:25‑cv‑06567, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The case filed on November 14, 2025, and classified in public docket systems as an employment civil‑rights matter, with U.S. District Judge Sarah E. Geraghty presiding and Magistrate Judge Anna W. Howard assigned. HD Supply described in its corporate materials as a wholly owned subsidiary of The Home Depot.
Allegations described in public summaries
Public summaries of the complaint state that the lawsuit arises from events at HD Supply’s Forest Park, Georgia (GA02) distribution center, where plaintiff Quinton J. Hall alleges a forklift battery incident and related safety concerns led to disputes over accommodations, race discrimination, and subsequent employment actions. Those accounts attribute the narrative to Hall’s filed complaint and emphasize that the allegations have not proven in court.
According to court documents, Hall claims that on June 27, 2024, a forklift battery at the warehouse allegedly overheated and produced smoke, prompting him to use fire extinguishers and later report injury and safety concerns. He further alleges that after requesting accommodations and raising complaints about workplace treatment and safety, he experienced unequal access to light‑duty work, escalating conflict with supervisors, and termination on July 25, 2024.
Current procedural status
Public docket‑tracker entries indicate that HD Supply has filed an “Answer and Defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint,” reflecting that the company has appeared in the case and responded to the allegations. The docket also lists a “Memorandum of Law in Support of its Partial Motion to Dismiss,” suggesting HD Supply is asking the court to dismiss certain claims at the pleading stage rather than seeking an immediate ruling on overall liability.
An order noted in public listings shows the court directing Hall to file a Certificate of Interested Persons under Local Rule 3.3, a standard early administrative requirement in federal civil cases. As of the latest publicly accessible entries, the case remains active, with pleadings and motions underway and no final decision on the merits reported in those sources.
Typical next steps in similar HD Supply employment cases
In federal employment civil‑rights cases of this type, the next steps commonly include completion of briefing on any motion to dismiss, followed by a court ruling that may narrow or preserve particular claims. If some claims survive, the parties typically proceed to a Rule 26(f) conference, submit a discovery plan, exchange initial disclosures, and conduct discovery through document production, written discovery, and depositions.
After discovery, defendants in employment cases often seek summary judgment, asking the court to decide whether the evidence is sufficient for a jury trial on some or all claims. Publicly available materials do not yet reflect such later‑stage motions or rulings in Hall v. HD Supply, Inc. and do not report any judgment determining whether HD Supply is liable.
Online visibility and search interest
A series of press‑style and article‑style posts published in December 2025 discuss Hall’s allegations against HD Supply and summarize key elements of the complaint, including the forklift battery incident, claimed failed safety compliance, and alleged racial discrimination and retaliation. Because these pieces reference “HD Supply,” “HD Supply lawsuit,” and “Quinton Hall vs. HD Supply” in headlines and body text, they may help explain why information about this case appears in search results for general terms such as “HD Supply.”
These materials consistently present the lawsuit as a pending civil action and note that HD Supply’s position on the facts, as set out in its answer and motion practice not fully detailed in the public summaries, and that the court has not ruled on the truth or falsity of Hall’s allegations.
