Kandan v. Burrows et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UMA R. KANDAN
VERSUS
ANDREA R. LUCAS, CHAIR,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 24-2089
DIVISION (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Amended
Answer (R. Doc. 151). The motion is granted for the following reasons.
Rule 15(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
When an issue not raised by the pleadings is tried by the parties’ express
or implied consent, it must be treated in all respects as if raised in the
pleadings. A party may move—at any time, even after judgment—to
amend the pleadings to conform them to the evidence and to raise an
unpleaded issue.
Id. (emphasis added). “District courts, of course, have discretion to allow late
amendments when no prejudice would result to the other party, and the ends of
justice so require.” Simi Inv. Co. v. Harris Ctny., Tex., 236 F.3d 240, 252 n.16 (5th
Cir. 2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “[T]he principal purpose of
Rule 15(b) is judicial economy.” Deere & Co. v. Johnson, 271 F.3d 613, 621 (5th Cir.
2001).
Case 2:24-cv-02089-EJD Document 156 Filed 02/09/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Defendant seeks leave to amend its answer to state a “same decision” defense
to a mixed-motive theory of the case.1 Prior to trial, both parties submitted proposed
jury instructions which contemplated “mixed motive” and “but for” causation.2 On
February 5, 2026, the Court informed the parties that it would charge the jury with
a mixed-motive causation instruction.3 Granting Defendant leave to explicitly state
the “same decision” defense would not prejudice Plaintiff and would promote the
important interest of judicial efficiency.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File
Amended Answer (R. Doc. 151) is GRANTED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 6 th day of February, 2026.
EVA J. DOSSIER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1 R. Doc. 151 at 1.
2 R. Docs. 115 at 7, 121 at 7.
3 Trial courts are tasked with discerning whether the “but for” or “mixed motive”
causation standard is appropriate given the state of the evidence. See Adams v.
Mem'l Hermann, 973 F.3d 343, 354 (5th Cir. 2020).
Case 2:24-cv-02089-EJD Document 156 Filed 02/09/26 Page 2 of 2