In Key v. Dynamic Security, Inc., No. 24-11069 (11th Cir. Aug. 5, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed important issues involving employee retaliation claims, EEOC filing deadlines, and jury instructions. The decision provides a useful reminder that employers should carefully document employee complaints and that seemingly technical procedural issues can significantly affect employment litigation.

Davita Key (“Key”), an African-American woman who wore her hair in locs, applied for a mailroom position with Dynamic Security, Inc. (“Dynamic”) which provided security services at Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama’s Montgomery facility. Dynamic maintained a grooming policy prohibiting locs and similar hairstyles. After Key was sent home because of her hair, she complained she had been discriminated against based on her race and pregnancy. She was subsequently told she could not return to work.

Key sued Dynamic and two Hyundai-related entities, asserting race and pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The district court entered summary judgment on most of her claims, leaving a § 1981 retaliation claim against Dynamic for trial. A jury awarded Key $85,200.00 in backpay, $214,864.00 for emotional pain and suffering, and $511,200.00 in punitive damages.

The Eleventh Circuit vacated the judgment against Dynamic and remanded for a new trial. Among other issues, the Court concluded that the district court’s jury instruction improperly omitted a necessary component of protected activity in a retaliation claim. An employee’s complaint constitutes protected activity when the employee has a good-faith, reasonable belief that unlawful discrimination occurred. But the employee must also explicitly or implicitly communicate a belief that the challenged practice constitutes unlawful discrimination. The jury instruction did not require the jury to determine whether Key communicated that belief. The Court held that this omission was prejudicial and required a new trial.

The Court also held that Key’s Title VII claims should not have been dismissed as untimely based on a presumption that she received her EEOC right-to-sue letter three days after mailing. Key testified that she never received the letter and presented evidence supporting her position. The Court concluded that she had sufficiently rebutted the presumption to create a factual dispute that must be resolved at trial.

The decision highlights the importance of responding carefully to employee complaints involving perceived discrimination. Employers should document the substance of complaints, identify the individuals who received them, preserve relevant communications, and investigate concerns promptly. The decision also emphasizes the importance of precision in employment litigation. Proper jury instructions must accurately reflect each element of a claim, and procedural deadlines should not be assumed satisfied or violated without examining the evidence concerning notice and receipt.