holding Native American spiritual beliefs, and, at all relevant times, 48 years old, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that could plausibly be construed as establishing Plaintiffs discharge was based on her membership in any of the protected classes of race, national origin, religion or age. In particular, although Plaintiff alleges membership in several protected classes, including race, national origin, religion and age, and that she was terminated from her employment shortly after commencing work with Defendant, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts giving Defendant fair notice of any grounds, based on either direct or circumstantial evidence, supporting an inference that Plaintiffs termination was based on her membership in any such class. Compare Boykin, 521 F.3d at 214-15 (<HOLDING>). In contrast, here, Plaintiff fails to allege
holding that consideration for guaranty of loan previously made was that guarantors friend the bank manager who issued the loan would not lose his job for making a bad loan holding that allegations of racial discrimination by citibank and its manager in connection with plaintiffs efforts to obtain a loan sufficiently stated a claim under the fha holding pro se plaintiffs complaint sufficiently gave notice of plaintiffs race and genderbased employment discrimination claim where the plaintiff alleged she was an africanamerican woman who sought a loan to purchase property in a predominantly africanamerican neighborhood and satisfied all of the lenders credit requirements but was denied the loan whereas similarly situated loan applicants outside of any protected class received loans because such allegations sufficiently described the circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination based on the alleged unequal treatment holding that a lender violated the tila by splitting the charges surrounding one loan into two loans executed on the same day where the consumer only sought one loan holding that where parties to an oral loan agreed that the loan would be repaid on demand the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the date plaintiff demanded repayment of the loan