Disability discrimination claims against a federal agency are brought under the Rehabilitation Act rather than the ADA. See Green v. Garland, No. 4:21-CV-2514-SAL-KDW, 2022 WL 3211217, at *14 (D.S.C. May 3, 2022) (“federal employee's disability-related claims lie under the Rehabilitation Act, not the ADA”), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 2965634 (D.S.C. July 27, 2022). “The only proper defendant to a federal-sector employment discrimination action under Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, or the ADEA is the ‘head of the department, agency, or unit.
Based on her January 2021 complaint, she is essentially contending that she thought she had already commenced the EEO process. In that regard, Plaintiff sent a January 7, 2021 email complaining of harassment by Shernell Carter to two of her other alleged harassers: John Wallace and Michael Pryor. [Doc. No. 27-1], Ex. A. “Although 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a) does not define what it means to ‘initiate contact' with an EEO counselor so as to make an EEO claim, the ‘EEOC has consistently held that a complainant may satisfy the criterion of EEO Counselor contact by initiating contact with any agency official logically connected with the EEO process, even if that official is not an EEO Counselor, and by exhibiting an intent to begin the EEO process.'” Green v. Garland, 2022 WL 3211217, at *12 (D.S.C. May 3, 2022) (quoting EEOC Management Directive 110, at ch. 2, § I.A, n.1 (Nov. 9, 1999)). Even assuming that Wallace and/or Pryor were “logically connected with the EEO process,” a proposition for which Plaintiff proffers no evidence, the email itself does not exhibit “an intent to begin the EEO process.” The email does not reference the “EEO record” or the EEO “process,” and as such does not exhibit the required intent.