# Vrinios v. Mary Kay, Inc.

Supreme Court of Texas, No. 24-0823

**Vrinios v. Mary Kay, Inc., No. 24-0823, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: The Court denied Jamie Cruse Vrinios's petition for review on January 30, 2026, after granting rehearing, reinstating the petition and receiving merits briefs, in a dispute over whether a former Mary Kay National Sales Director forfeited her Family Security Program retirement benefits by sending a promotional email.**

Practice areas: employment, restrictive covenants

## Key issues

- The Court denied Jamie Cruse Vrinios's petition for review on January 30, 2026, after granting rehearing, reinstating the petition and receiving merits briefs, in a dispute over whether a former Mary Kay National Sales Director forfeited her Family Security Program retirement benefits by sending a promotional email.
- The petition asked whether a forfeiture-for-competition clause may cancel vested retirement benefits based on post-retirement conduct when its language is at best ambiguous; the Court issued no opinion.

## Factual History
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 (Petition for Review, PDF pp. 8-11; Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF pp. 10-14).

## Procedural History
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 (Petition for Review, PDF pp. 11-13; Docket).

## Issues Presented
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 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 7).

## Legal Arguments
**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 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 11-12; Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF p. 9).

## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case
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 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 7).

## Practice Area Tags
employment, restrictive-covenants

## Procedural Posture/Vehicle
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).

## Amicus Involvement
None noted

---
Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/24-0823. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.