Case No. 24-0823
Jamie Vrinios worked for Mary Kay for about 25 years and rose to National Sales Director. In 2017, shortly before she would join the Family Security Program (FSP), Mary Kay accused her of violating her sales director agreement, and she signed an amendment letting her remain until year's end and become eligible if she met conditions. She joined the FSP on January 1, 2018 and was paid for two months, but Mary Kay stopped payments after she sent an April 2018 email promoting her health and wellness podcast to Mary Kay sales-force members; Mary Kay says she repeatedly misused confidential contact lists.1
In a 10-2 verdict the jury found Vrinios breached the amended agreement but awarded Mary Kay no damages, and found Mary Kay breached the FSP agreement but that the breach was excused by waiver; the trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment and the Dallas Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court denied the petition April 4, 2025, granted rehearing and reinstated it September 5, 2025, received merits briefs from Vrinios (September 9, 2025) and Mary Kay (October 24, 2025), and denied the petition again on January 30, 2026.1
Petition for review from the Fifth Court of Appeals; denied April 4, 2025, reinstated on rehearing September 5, 2025, and denied January 30, 2026, with no writing (Docket).
Whether a forfeiture-for-competition clause may cancel vested retirement benefits based on post-retirement conduct when its language is at best ambiguous and Texas law requires unmistakable clarity before enforcing a forfeiture.1
Vrinios (Petitioner): forfeitures are disfavored, she met every condition and her benefits vested, and the amendment conditioned only eligibility, so at most it is ambiguous; if reversed, the prior-material-breach defense should be remanded.
Mary Kay (Respondent): the FSP payments were a conditional right, the contracts unambiguously make breach of continuing obligations cause for termination, and the rule against forfeiture has no role.1
The Court gave no reasons for the denial; Vrinios argued that forfeiture-for-competition provisions increasingly substitute for noncompetes and their status in Texas is unsettled.1
None noted
The following is current as of October 9, 2026.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 09/05/2025 | Motion for Rehearing - Disposed |
| 09/05/2025 | Previous Order of the Court withdrawn |
| 09/05/2025 | Petition Reinstated |
| 09/05/2025 | Brief on the Merits Ordered |
Review SCOTX decisions faster than ever.
With a SCOTX Report account, receive AI-generated summaries of every opinion and order, plus direct links to the briefing, opinions, and orders themselves—so you can quickly determine whether each opinion and order deserves your attention.
Create a Free Account Log In