According to court documents Kelley Rieves began working for a Buc-ee’s location in the Cypress area in 2009 as an assistant manager and signed employment contracts with the company that were set to run through August, 2013.

RELATED: Buc-ee's and its competitive pay gets love from the National Review

Three years later, she found a new job with a marketing and printing outfit and left the company in July 2012. She still had a year left on her deal with Buc-ee’s.

This was a violation of the contract she had signed with Buc-ee’s, the company said in its lawsuit. She, however, had assumed that she left on good terms, according to an interview she did with the Houston Press this week.

Rieves tells the Press that she was sent a letter a year later from the Lake Jackson-based company stating that she owed them $67,720.29 in "retention pay."

She later sued the company looking to resolve the contract dispute in court. Buc-ee’s in turn sued Rieves and her new employer in March 2014 in the 165th State District Civil Court. In September, 2014, Buc-ee's and the other company jointly dismissed their claims against each other, according to court documents.

As for the ongoing litigation between Rieves and Buc-ee's, a judge has ruled that she now owes $100,000 in total, an amount that includes legal fees and interest. The judge rejected Rieves' complaints and arguments in full.

RELATED: 25 amazing things you probably didn't know about Buc-ee's

According to the Houston Press the woman’s contract stated that she had to give six months advance notice that she was leaving the company and that her pay was divided into regular pay and something called retention pay.

When she was set to leave the company she says that Buc-ee's gave her three options: She could take out a loan from the company to repay the amount, get her new employer to buy out her Buc-ee’s contract, or just stay at the company and ride out her contract.

She decided instead to simply leave without making any arrangements, according to the Houston Press, and gave notice on May 31, 2012.

RELATED: Buc-ee's buys future I-10 travel center site in Katy

Rieves tells reporters that she does not have the money to repay Buc-ee’s. Her lawyer says that Texas law states that employers cannot stop an at-will employee from leaving or enforce monetary penalties for doing so. Rieves is appealing the judge’s latest ruling in the case.

Meanwhile the staff attorney for Buc-ee’s, Jeff Nadalo, sent Chron.com a statement that didn’t go into specifics in the case, but did note that the company has had success with contracts like the one that Rieves signed.

“Buc-ee's employee incentive compensation programs have proven to be very successful, as evidenced by Buc-ee's high employee retention rates. The purpose of Buc-ee's retention program is to attract and retain the very best employees,” he wrote.

Retention bonuses are not uncommon and are used by companies that want to keep employees that they value and look to invest in.

Rieves told the Houston Press that she wishes she had read the contract she signed with Buc-ee’s a bit more clearly. Had she known what was in store for her if she left Buc-ee’s early she doesn’t think she would have worked for them.rmer-employee-for-breaching-8345634.php

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5556256&forum_id=2#47846835)

This summary judgment appeal presents the question whether provisions in an employment agreement that require an employee to repay substantial parts of her compensation upon termination of employment are unlawful restraints of trade. Because the provisions lack reasonable limits and impose a substantial penalty on the exercise of an at-will employee's right to quit her job, we hold that they are unenforceable. We therefore reverse the trial court's judgment and (1) render judgment that appellee Buc-ee's Ltd. take nothing on its claims against appellant Kelley Rieves; (2) render judgment declaring the "Additional Compensation" and "Retention Pay" provisions in Rieves's employment contracts to be unenforceable restraints of trade; and (3) remand the question of Rieves's entitlement to attorneys' fees to the trial court for further proceedings.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13185525902746087017

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5556256&forum_id=2#47855879)