HD Supply Lawsuit: Judge Gives Quinton Hall Key Win With Permission to Strengthen Employment Claims Against Company

A recent court order in the HD Supply lawsuit allows plaintiff Quinton J. Hall to file an amended complaint by February 2, 2026, mooting HD Supply’s partial dismissal bid and keeping his employment claims active in federal court.

ATLANTA — The HD Supply lawsuit brought by former warehouse worker Quinton J. Hall has entered a new procedural phase after a federal magistrate judge granted Hall permission to amend his complaint, temporarily mooting HD Supply’s pending partial motion to dismiss.​

According to public docket summaries, a January 16, 2026, order by U.S. Magistrate Judge Anna W. Howard in Hall v. HD Supply, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-06567, allows Hall to file a first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and sets a February 2, 2026, deadline for the new filing. Because an amended pleading is anticipated, the court denied HD Supply’s partial motion to dismiss as moot, but without prejudice, preserving the company’s ability to refile or renew dismissal arguments once the amended complaint is on the docket or if Hall misses the deadline.​

Background of the HD Supply lawsuit

Hall filed the HD Supply lawsuit in November 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging workplace violations tied to HD Supply’s GA02 warehouse in Forest Park, Georgia. Public summaries of the complaint describe claims arising from a June 27, 2024, forklift battery incident and subsequent employment decisions, including alleged failures to accommodate medical limitations and disputed termination.​

Docket-tracking reports indicate Hall asserts multiple federal employment-law claims—disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment—along with state-law claims such as defamation and wrongful termination. HD Supply has denied wrongdoing in its filings and initially responded to the lawsuit with a partial motion to dismiss, aimed particularly at some of the state-law counts while allowing the core federal claims to be tested further in court.​

Procedural posture after the amendment order

The January 16 order follows standard federal practice, where courts commonly permit at least one amended complaint early in litigation absent clear prejudice, undue delay, or bad faith. By granting leave to amend, the court has not made any determination on the merits of Hall’s allegations in the HD Supply lawsuit or on HD Supply’s potential liability; instead, it has reset the pleadings so that the amended complaint will become the operative document once filed.​

After Hall files his amended complaint, HD Supply will have an opportunity to respond under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which may include submitting a renewed motion to dismiss tailored to the amended allegations or filing an answer and allowing the case to proceed directly into discovery. The order’s February 2 deadline functions as a procedural safeguard; failure to amend by that date could allow HD Supply to ask the court to revive or reconsider dismissal arguments based on the original complaint.​

What comes next in the HD Supply lawsuit

Hall files the amended complaint on time, the HD Supply lawsuit is expected to move forward on the revised pleading, and the court may issue or adjust scheduling orders governing further motion practice and discovery. In an employment case of this type, discovery would typically involve exchanging documents, taking depositions, and gathering other evidence related to the reported forklift incident, Hall’s requests for accommodations, internal communications about his employment status, and the reasons offered for his termination.​

The HD Supply lawsuit remains in its early stages, and no trial date has been set. As of this report, all allegations in Hall v. HD Supply, Inc. are unproven, and public reporting indicates HD Supply has not issued separate public statements about the January 16 order beyond its court filings.

TAG: HD Supply Holding Inc | Quinton J Hall | Hall v. HD Supply | HD Supply Lawsuit | Rule 15

Contributor: Michael Saponara

Published on January  18,  2026