A former employee of a federal agency claims he faced repeated discrimination, harassment, and retaliation from his supervisors, resulting in delayed promotions and a hostile work environment. The allegations center on actions taken by senior officials that allegedly hindered his career advancement and subjected him to disparate treatment based on race, color, and age.
Patrick Hamlette filed the complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on April 16, 2026, naming Travis Hill in his official capacity as Acting Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as defendant.
According to the filing, Hamlette is a 55-year-old mixed-race African American and White male who worked as a cyber special agent with the FDIC from April 2020. Prior to joining the FDIC, he held supervisory roles at other federal agencies including the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Food and Drug Administration Office of Criminal Investigations. He alleges that throughout his employment at FDIC’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), he was subjected to unlawful harassment and discrimination based on race (African American), color (Black/White), age discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation for engaging in protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The complaint outlines a series of incidents beginning shortly after Hamlette’s hiring. In January 2021, he was reassigned from New York to Arlington, Virginia. Soon after this move, Hamlette learned from another agent that his supervisor had made derogatory comments about not wanting him in the Electronic Crimes Unit (ECU). He further claims that promises of promotion were repeatedly made but not fulfilled: “On March 29, 2021, SAC Sallows falsely told Mr. Hamlette during his Performance Appraisal that he would be promoted to CG-13 by the end of 2021.”
Hamlette also describes several instances where he says his supervisors gave misleading or false information regarding promotional opportunities or requirements. He alleges younger or less qualified coworkers were promoted ahead of him despite his experience. In one example from May 2021 during an assignment in California with SAC Sallows, Hamlette recounts hearing comments supportive of controversial social media posts labeling Black Lives Matter supporters as terrorists. He also recalls Sallows stating “White males are going to become a minority in this country,” which Hamlette found offensive.
Further incidents detailed include alleged violations of agency policy by supervisors using unauthorized messaging applications for official business; obstruction or denial of participation in multi-agency investigations; delays or denials in approving operational plans; discouragement from applying for promotions; dissemination of misleading information about telework policies; and failure to follow up on safety concerns raised after enforcement operations.
Hamlette asserts that these actions resulted not only in lost wages due to delayed promotion but also caused embarrassment among law enforcement colleagues: “Mr. Hamlette felt that SAC Sallows’ conduct was intended to cause embarrassment amongst his law enforcement colleagues within and outside of FDIC-OIG.”
The complaint states that Hamlette exhausted all administrative remedies prior to filing suit: “Plaintiff initiated pre-complaint counseling by making initial contact with an EEO Counselor in November 2023… On February 26, 2024 Plaintiff timely filed a formal EEO Complaint Agency Case No. FDICEO-24-016…” After more than 180 days without resolution or final agency decision—and following voluntary dismissal from an EEOC hearing—he received a Final Agency Decision on January 19, 2026 before filing this action within ninety days.
Hamlette seeks declaratory relief recognizing violations under Title VII and ADEA; injunctive relief prohibiting future discriminatory practices; compensatory damages for loss of reputation, career advantage, emotional tranquility; punitive damages; attorneys’ fees; costs; pre-judgment interest; post-judgment interest; any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorneys representing Patrick Hamlette are not named explicitly within these excerpts. The case is identified as Case No.: 3:26-cv-325.
Source: 326cv00325_Hamlette_v_Hill_Complaint_Eastern_District_Virginia.pdf
