BEAUMONT, TX (LN) — U.S. District Judge Marcia A. Crone granted pro se plaintiff Elvira Jones’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint in her employment discrimination case against the City of Port Arthur and former police chief Ronald Burton, ruling that the city failed to show undue prejudice filing.

Jones, an African-American woman, alleges that despite her qualifications and seniority, she was repeatedly denied a promotion to Equipment Operator I while less qualified male employees were selected for the position during her seventeen years of employment with the city.

The case, removed to the Eastern District of Texas in December 2025, has seen a rapid succession of amended pleadings. Jones filed her first amended complaint in January 2026, followed by a second amended complaint in March 2026 to correct erroneous dates.

On April 10, the final day to file a timely amended pleading under the court’s scheduling order, Jones filed the motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.

Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the amendment pleaded facts known or should have been known of the second amended complaint and that allowing the amendment would unduly prejudice them by wasting resources spent on their second motion to dismiss.

Crone rejected the prejudice argument, noting that the discovery deadline does not pass until October 30, 2026, and that the amendment does not add new claims but rather clarifies existing ones.

“The court acknowledges that the timing of Jones’s motion is inconvenient, at best, and understands Defendants’ frustration,” Crone wrote. “The court also recognizes that the alleged prejudice could have been avoided or mitigated had Jones’s counsel used a little more diligence in securing the client’s verification and the newly alleged information.”

The judge cautioned that a repetition of the timing issues would not be viewed favorably, but found that the case, being less than six months old and still in the motion to dismiss stage, did not warrant denying leave to amend.

“Given that this case remains in its infancy, Jones’s assertions that she did not act in bad faith or have a dilatory motive, and the lack of evidence to the contrary, these factors weigh in favor of granting her request for leave to amend,” Crone wrote.

The court also found no undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, noting that Jones filed the motion before the scheduling order deadline expired and that only 35 days had passed since the second amended complaint.

Crone denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint as moot, effective upon the granting of the third amended complaint.

Defendants have until May 22, 2026, to file a responsive pleading to the third amended complaint.