of clear critical importance to the claim.” EEOC v. Concentra Health Servs., Inc., 496 F.3d 773, 782 (7th Cir. 2007). Herndon’s complaint describes the kind of discrimination that she believes occurred (racial), the timing of the alleged discrimination (December 2014 until May 2015), and the identity of those responsible (Wat-ford and the Housing Authority). She adds that the inspections of her unit were “racially motivated” and that the lease recer-tification process was done “in pretext of race.” The district court erred when it required Herndon to plead more specific facts that would establish the defendants’ discriminatory intent because nothing more was required for Herndon to state a claim of racial discrimination. See Swanson v. Citibank, N.A., 614 F.3d 400, 405 (7th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). Herndon also challenges the district court’s
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 plaintiffs had stated a claim for intentional discrimination under the ada and  504 recognizing that the distinction between national origin and racial discrimination is an extremely difficult one to trace and holding that plaintiffs allegations of racial discrimination were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss holding official immunity is available in claims of discrimination if plaintiff fails to establish his treatment by defendants was so at variance with what would reasonably be anticipated absent racial discrimination that racial discrimination is the probable explanation