and that “the prima facie case relates to the employee’s burden of presenting evidence. Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 510, 122 S.Ct. 992. A fair reading of the Lindsays’ complaint shows that they have pleaded claims for which relief may be granted. The Lindsays have alleged the statutory bases for their claims (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, and 3604) and have set forth the factual predicate of those claims. They allege that the Yateses advertised their house for sale, that they (the Lindsays) executed a purchase agreement to buy the house, and that nearly two weeks after signing the purchase agreement and depositing $500 in earnest money with Brent Yates — and one day after Brent learned they were black — the Yateses terminated the contract. Cf. Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S. at 514, 122 S.Ct. 992 (<HOLDING>). Because these allegations are sufficient to
holding that two suits related to the same set of facts because they both concerned the events leading to the plaintiffs termination holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable holding that the plaintiff stated nationalorigin and agediscrimination claims where he detailed the events leading to his termination provided relevant dates and included the ages and nationalities of at least some of the relevant persons involved with his termination holding that the numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the persons primarily responsible for plaintiffs termination when coupled with the timing of plaintiffs termination and the conflicting reasons given by defendants agents for the termination might well persuade a jury that defendant fired the plaintiff in retaliation for  the letter sent by her attorney to defendants general counsel holding that plaintiffs complaint which included the ages and nationalities of at least some of the relevant persons involved with his termination was sufficient to provide notice of plaintiffs age and national origin discrimination claims