Federal safety inspectors found serious hazards at HD Supply’s Forest Park, GA02 warehouse in May 2024 – from neglected forklift battery maintenance to missing emergency eyewash stations near corrosive charging areas. Weeks later, those very lapses allegedly culminated in a June 27 forklift battery explosion that left worker Quinton J. Hall permanently injured. Now Hall is suing HD Supply for $50 million, alleging the company ignored clear safety warnings and failed to protect its employees.
OSHA Found Safety Violations Before The Forklift Fire
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) records show that just weeks before Hall’s accident, HD Supply’s Forest Park GA02 facility was cited for multiple safety violations. Inspectors from OSHA’s Atlanta office opened a complaint-driven inspection at the GA02 warehouse on May 6, 2024, osha.gov, honing in on powered industrial truck safety issues. The investigation uncovered a total of four serious violations (and one lesser violation), with initial fines topping $47,000. HD Supply later settled the case for $25,000, but the substance of the citations is telling: regulators effectively flagged an “HD Supply unsafe warehouse” long before the events of late June.
Among the problems OSHA identified was a failure to follow basic forklift safety protocols. According to the official citation text, company employees were found leaving forklifts running and unattended on the warehouse floor, in violation of OSHA’s powered industrial truck regulations. Forklifts cannot be simply abandoned with keys on or engines running; per 29 CFR 1910.178, if an operator is more than 25 feet away or out of view, the vehicle is considered “unattended” and must be shut off. Yet on “May 28, 2024, and times prior,” the OSHA inspector observed multiple forklifts and order-pickers left idling with no operators in sight osha.gov. This dangerous practice isn’t mere technical rule-bending – an unattended, running forklift can overheat or move unexpectedly, posing a risk of collisions, fires, or, in the worst case, the kind of battery malfunction that Hall later experienced.
Equally alarming was OSHA’s finding that HD Supply failed to provide proper battery maintenance safety in the charging area. Warehouse batteries (like those powering forklifts) contain highly corrosive acid and emit hydrogen gas during charging, which is why safety standards require accessible emergency eyewash and drench stations nearby. OSHA cited HD Supply under 29 CFR 1910.151(c) for not having a usable eyewash station within reach of the battery handling area. In fact, the inspection report notes that the designated eyewashes were “not available for immediate emergency use” – they were blocked by stored materials at the forklift charging station. This meant that if battery acid splashed or a worker was exposed to corrosive fumes, there was no quick way to flush their eyes or skin. It’s a fundamental safety oversight, one OSHA mandates precisely because battery accidents can turn catastrophic in seconds. HD Supply’s warehouse, however, had allowed this critical equipment to be obstructed and effectively useless.
Warnings Ignored and a Preventable Explosion
The OSHA inspection in May 2024 put HD Supply on notice that urgent fixes were needed. By late June, those warnings proved prophetic. On June 27, 2024, Quinton J. Hall – a high-performing forklift operator at the GA02 distribution center – lived through the nightmare everyone had feared. According to court filings, the forklift Hall was operating began to smoke and overheat during his shift, with its battery compartment billowing out fumes. The situation quickly spiraled. Hall managed to grab two fire extinguishers and fight back the flames inside the warehouse, an act of heroism that likely prevented a larger inferno. But before the fire was contained, the forklift’s battery exploded, releasing a cloud of noxious smoke and chemicals that left Hall disoriented and gasping for air. In the chaos, Hall sustained a serious back injury – one that would later be deemed a permanent partial disability – as he struggled with the heavy extinguishers and fled the malfunctioning machine.
That frightening incident was no bolt from the blue; it was the culmination of the very hazards OSHA had flagged. A forklift battery overheating and erupting aligns exactly with the “unsafe warehouse” conditions documented weeks earlier. If forklifts were left running unattended, as OSHA observed, an overheating battery could go unnoticed until it’s too late. If emergency eyewashes were blocked, as was cited, workers would have little recourse when faced with toxic, corrosive smoke. Hall’s experience underscores how preventable this accident was. The elements of a tragedy were all in place: poorly maintained equipment, inadequate safety gear, and management that, by all appearances, failed to heed the red flags. Hall himself has pointed out that OSHA’s findings were a clear warning sign – one HD Supply should have acted upon immediately, but didn’t.
$50 Million Lawsuit Seeks Accountability
In the aftermath, Quinton J. Hall found no support from his employer, but, as he describes it, indifference and retaliation. After the explosion, Hall reported his injury and even requested light-duty accommodations for his back – requests that were allegedly brushed aside. Within a month, despite his efforts to continue working, Hall was fired. This chain of events has now landed HD Supply in federal court. Hall filed a $50 million lawsuit against HD Supply, accusing the company of gross negligence in maintaining a safe workplace and of unlawfully terminating him for raising concerns. In his complaint (Hall v. HD Supply, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-06567), he alleges that HD Supply “ignored safety alarms” and violated his rights under workplace safety and anti-discrimination laws. The suit isn’t just about compensation for a back injury – it argues that HD Supply’s conduct showed a reckless disregard for employee safety and welfare. Hall, who is representing himself, frames the case as a fight for “safety and dignity behind warehouse walls,” shining a light on conditions that, in his view, could put any warehouse worker at risk.
Critically, Hall’s lawsuit draws a straight line from OSHA’s documented violations to the explosion that changed his life. May 2024 OSHA inspection and subsequent citations as evidence that HD Supply was aware of the dangers in its Forest Park facility. By alleging that the company failed to act on explicit warnings, Hall’s case paints the picture of an employer that willfully gambled with worker safety. The OSHA report is more than a bureaucratic fine print in this narrative – it’s essentially treated as an expert witness, an objective confirmation that the warehouse was indeed unsafe. HD Supply, for its part, has yet to file a detailed response in court, and it will have the opportunity to contest Hall’s claims. But if the allegations hold true, the convergence of OSHA’s findings and the incident itself could be damning. It suggests that the forklift explosion was not a freak accident but a preventable catastrophe, one that HD Supply might have averted had it addressed the hazards when it had the chance.
A Culture of Safety or Negligence?
At its core, this saga raises a broader question that goes beyond one worker or one warehouse: Did HD Supply foster a culture of safety, or a culture of negligence? The facts presented so far tilt toward the latter. OSHA’s mission is to ensure safe and healthful working conditions, and when its inspectors effectively walk into a warehouse and find a checklist of glaring issues – from vehicles left running to blocked emergency equipment – it signals a breakdown in basic safety management. For a company of HD Supply’s stature (a national industrial distributor and part of the Home Depot empire), such lapses are not only unacceptable; they’re baffling. With corporate resources and safety programs presumably at their disposal, how did conditions at the Forest Park center deteriorate to the point that regulators had to intervene? And why, even after that intervention, did a worker still end up in a hospital from an incident that mirrored the very hazards in OSHA’s citation?
HD Supply officials will eventually have to answer these questions before a judge and jury. In the court of public opinion, however, the known evidence already delivers a harsh verdict. An unsafe warehouse is not a matter of bad luck – it is usually the result of poor leadership, insufficient training, and corners cut on safety. Hall’s $50 million lawsuit aims to hold HD Supply accountable for precisely that. It alleges that the company’s negligence caused a talented employee to suffer a life-changing injury, and that even after the fact, the company chose to oust him rather than remedy its failures. If those claims are substantiated, the Forest Park incident will stand as a stark example of why OSHA enforcement and whistleblower protections are so critical. Workers should never have to trade their health for a paycheck, and no employer should get a pass when known dangers go unaddressed.
In the coming legal battle, HD Supply will undoubtedly present its side of the story. Perhaps they will argue the incident was an unforeseeable malfunction or that they had safety measures that Hall didn’t follow. But the OSHA findings from May 2024 cast a long shadow over such defenses. They indicate that foreseeable hazards were present and had been formally brought to the company’s attention. The onus was on HD Supply to fix those issues immediately – a responsibility that, according to Hall’s complaint, the company shirked. The result was an employee ending up in pain, a warehouse in chaos, and now a public lawsuit that lays bare what was happening behind the warehouse walls.
Conclusion
No outcome can erase Quinton Hall’s injury or the ordeal he recounts. However, this case has implications far beyond one man’s tragedy. It serves as a litmus test for workplace safety standards and corporate accountability. If a jury finds that HD Supply indeed ignored OSHA’s warnings and allowed an “accident waiting to happen” to proceed unhindered, the financial hit – $50 million or otherwise – will be only part of the fallout. Equally significant will be the message sent to employers everywhere: safety regulations are not red tape; they are lifelines. Companies that brush them off do so at their peril, and at the peril of their people. HD Supply’s Forest Park warehouse was cited for serious safety violations, and shortly thereafter, a worker was gravely hurt in exactly the way regulators feared. That is a narrative no company wants to own. As the legal process unfolds, one hopes that at the very least, it has prompted HD Supply and similar warehouse operators to take a long, hard look at their safety practices. The stakes are literally life and death – and, as this case shows, the cost of an unsafe warehouse can be staggeringly high, both in human and financial terms.
Inside HD Supply: Company Overview and Online Footprint
Founded in 1974, HD Supply has grown into one of the nation’s largest industrial distributors, serving construction, maintenance, and institutional customers across the United States.
The HD Supply company overview highlights business segments that 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. HD Supply also offers HD Supply net 30 accounts, a trade-credit option that allows qualified customers to purchase materials on account with 30-day invoicing. These net-30 terms are widely used in construction and property-management sectors as a short-term financing tool.
The company operates numerous HD Supply locations across the country and employs thousands of workers. Its HD Supply careers portal advertises roles in logistics, warehouse operations, supply-chain management, sales, and corporate functions.
Sources: OSHA Inspection Records osha.gov; Violation Tracker (OSHA Enforcement Data) violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org; Hall v. HD Supply Complaint (Case No. 1:25-cv-06567); IssueWire News on Hall’s Lawsuit issuewire.com bignewsnetwork.com
About the Author
