1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS, § 

§ 

 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, § 

§ 

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00343-Y

§ 

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL § 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, § 

MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND § 

ASSOCIATES, INC., JULIE § 

HEDRICK, AND ERIK HARRIS, § 

§ 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff. § 

DEFENDANTS ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, 

JULIE HEDRICK AND ERIK HARRIS’ ANSWER TO 

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AND 

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIM 

FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISIONS AND ORDERS 

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Association of Professional Flight Attendants 

(“APFA”), and Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris (collectively, “Defendants”), by and 

through their undersigned counsel and in accordance with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure (“FRCP”), file this Answer to Plaintiff Robert (Bob) Ross’ (“Ross”) “Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint” (“Amended Complaint”); and, pursuant to Rule 13 of the FRCP, 

Defendant APFA files this Counterclaim for Enforcement of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order 

and for Ross’ breach of fiduciary duty under Section 501(a) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §501(a). 

In support thereof, Defendants state as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that Ross brings this action under various federal and state laws including the 
2

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) which is codified at 29 U.S.C. § 

401, et seq., but deny that Ross is entitled to any relief in this action under the LMRDA or under 

any other federal or state laws or causes of action, and aver, as set forth in Defendant APFA’s 

counterclaim, that the Decisions and Orders issued by Arbitrator Ruben Armendariz 

(“Arbitrator”) on March 19, 2022 and on August 24, 2022 (“Arbitrator’s Decisions and Orders”) 

arising out of charges brought against him by certain APFA members pursuant to the APFA 

Constitution should remain in full force and effect and that this Court should enter an order 

enforcing said Decisions and Orders ordering Ross to comply therewith, and that Ross also 

should be found liable for his breach of fiduciary duty owed to APFA under Section 501(a) of 

the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §501(a). 

2. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that Ross was elected APFA National President in 2016 but deny that Ross 

was elected “shortly after” the merger of American Airlines and US Airways and aver that the 

merger of American Airlines and US Airways occurred in 2013. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 2, and specifically deny that a “power struggle” ensued between AFA 

and APFA after the merger of American Airlines and US Airways; deny that AFA has 

“infiltrated” APFA “with the intent to take over via a merger of the two unions;” deny that 

APFA internal disciplinary procedures have been used to “victimize any union member 

outspoken against a merger between AFA and APFA;” and deny that “[v]iolations of members’ 

rights have ensued in pursuit of the AFA agenda.” 

PARTIES 

3. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that Ross was employed with APFA in the state of Texas but lack sufficient 
3

knowledge to admit or deny that Ross was a citizen of Texas during his employment and 

therefore deny that allegation. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 3, Defendants admit 

that Ross’ current primary residence is in the State of California but lack sufficient knowledge to 

form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that all events pertinent to the claims in the 

Amended Complaint occurred within the state of Texas and therefore deny that allegation. With 

regard to sentence three of Paragraph 3, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as 

to whether Ross’ current primary residence is 4701 Hayloft Ct., El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 and 

therefore deny that allegation. 

4. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 4, Defendants admit that Defendant 

McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc., d/b/a Diversified Credit Systems (“Diversified”) is the 

assignee of a debt owed by Ross to APFA, specifically, a $5,436.47 overpayment to Ross that 

resulted from an incorrect calculation of a payout of Ross’ unused sick and vacation days. 

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that 

Diversified’s registered agent for service of process is M.S. McGaughey and therefore deny that 

allegation. Defendants admit the allegations of sentence two of Paragraph 4. With regard to 

sentence three of Paragraph 4, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegation regarding Diversified’s principal purpose and therefore deny that 

allegation. With regard to sentence four of Paragraph 4, this sentence states a legal conclusion to 

which no response is required, but to the extent a response is required that allegation is denied. 

5. With regard to Paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that 

APFA is a party to a transition agreement with Ross dated March 1, 2018 (“Transition 

Agreement”). Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations that the 

Transition Agreement formed the basis of the “original claim” which “gave rise to this lawsuit” 
4

and therefore deny those allegations. Defendants admit that APFA can be served through its 

current National President, Julie Hedrick (“Hedrick”) at APFA headquarters at 1004 W. Euless 

Blvd., Euless, TX 76040. 

6. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint. 

7. With regard to Paragraph 7 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that 

Defendant Erik Harris (“Harris”) is the National Treasurer of APFA and can be served at his 

place of employment at APFA headquarters 1004 W. Euless Blvd, Euless, Texas 76040. 

Defendants deny that Harris’ place of residence is 2100 Heritage Ave., Apartment 7104, Euless, 

TX 76039 and further deny that he can be served at that address. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

8. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that Ross filed his Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Texas and asserts that this Court has jurisdiction on the basis of Federal 

Question and diversity between the parties to this suit. 

9. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that Ross brings this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 

1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) and (B), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1692 d, e, and f, and 

the Labor Management Records and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. 412, Sections 102 and 609, but 

deny that Ross is entitled to any relief under these statutes or any other statute, including the 

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) as codified at 29 U.S.C. § 401 et 

seq. Defendants deny that Ross is entitled to any relief under the LMRDA or under any other 

federal or state laws or causes of action. 
5

10. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 10 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and therefore deny this allegation, but aver, as stated in 

Defendant APFA’s counterclaim, that the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order found against Ross 

and ordered him to pay at least $27,631.60 in damages to APFA. Defendants admit that APFA 

conducts business in Texas and that Hedrick and Harris are employed by APFA in Texas. With 

regard to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to 

admit or deny the allegations and therefore deny the allegations. 

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

11. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 11 of the Amended Complaint, this 

sentence states a legal conclusion to which no response is required, but to the extent a response is 

required the allegation is denied. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

12. With regard to heading “A” above Paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint and 

sentence one of Paragraph 12, Defendants admit that Ross was elected APFA National President 

in 2016 but deny that Ross was elected “shortly after” the merger of American Airlines and US 

Airways and aver that the merger of American Airlines and US Airways occurred in 2013. 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12, and specifically deny that there 

existed a “power struggle” regarding a potential AFA/APFA merger and deny that APFA’s 

internal procedures for resolving charges filed by members under Article VII of the APFA 

Constitution have been used “as a method of victimizing Plaintiff [Ross], and others that oppose 

such merger [between AFA and APFA] in an effort to silence the opposition.” 
6

13. Defendants admit that at the APFA Annual Conference on February 28, 2018 – 

March 3, 2018 Ross resigned as APFA National President but deny the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 13 of the Amended Complaint, and specifically deny that “[f]ear of retaliation led 

many [APFA] Board members to support Ross’s resignation.” Defendants aver that a neutral 

arbitrator found Ross, in his role as APFA National President, was guilty of violations of the 

APFA Constitution and Policy Manual for financial misconduct and breach of fiduciary duty, 

and aver, as stated in Defendant APFA’s counterclaim, that the Arbitrator’s Decisions and 

Orders should remain in full force and effect and that this Court should enter an order enforcing 

said Decisions and Orders and that Ross also be found liable for his breach of fiduciary duty 

under Section 501(a) of the LMRDA. 

14. With regard to heading “B” above Paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that Ross and APFA are parties to a Transition Agreement. Defendants admit 

that Ross resigned from his position as APFA National President on March 2, 2018, at the close 

of the 2018 APFA Annual Convention in March 2018. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations in heading “B” but admit that Ross was duly elected, by virtue of running unopposed, 

as APFA local San Francisco Base President in 2021 and took office in April 2021. With regard 

to sentence one of Paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint (including bullet points), Defendants 

admit that Ross resigned his position as APFA National President on March 2, 2018, at the close 

of the 2018 APFA Annual Convention in March 2018, and is party to a Transition Agreement 

with APFA, which document speaks for itself, and deny the remaining allegations of sentence 

one. With regard to sentence two and three of Paragraph 14, Defendants admit that a Transition 

Agreement between Ross and APFA that was signed on March 1, 2018, and admit that a true and 

correct copy of the Transition Agreement is attached as Exhibit A-1 and that the document 
7

speaks for itself regarding its contents. Except as expressly admitted above, Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 14. 

15. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint, admit 

that Ross was duly elected, by virtue of running unopposed, as APFA local San Francisco Base 

President in 2021 and took office in April 2021. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in 

sentence one. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 15, Defendants admit that APFA’s 

current elected National Officers are National President Julie Hedrick, National Vice President 

Larry Salas, National Treasurer Erik Harris and National Secretary Josh Black, but deny that 

AFA played any role whatsoever in the election of the current administration and further deny 

that “AFA members crept deeper into key roles within APFA’s organizational structure.” 

16. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this sentence and 

therefore deny the allegations. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 16, Defendants admit 

that APFA members Chinery-Burns and Sandra Lee (“Lee”) requested to view and were 

provided access, through Harris, to financial records from the Ross administration pursuant to 

their rights under the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual and the Labor-Management 

Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) Section 201(c), 29 U.S.C. § 431(c), but deny the 

remaining allegations of sentence two, and specifically deny that Harris “assisted” ChineryBurns and Lee and specifically deny that Chinery-Burns and Lee were granted access to any 

personally identifiable information regarding Ross that they were not entitled to under the 

LMRDA or the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual and aver that the Transition Agreement’s 

confidentiality clause is not enforceable under the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual or

LMRDA Section 201(c), 29 U.S.C. § 431(c). Defendants admit the allegations of sentence three 
8

of Paragraph 16. With regard to sentence four of Paragraph 16, Defendants lack sufficient 

knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in this sentence and therefore deny the allegations. 

Defendants deny the allegations in sentence five of Paragraph 16. 

17. With regard to heading “C” above Paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that on November 24, 2020, Harris sent Ross a letter demanding that he repay 

APFA for a $5,436.47 overpayment which resulted from an incorrect calculation of Ross’ payout 

for unused sick and vacation days. Sentences two and three, including i, ii and iii of Paragraph 

19 refer to the contents of the November 24, 2020 letter sent from Harris to Ross. Defendants 

admit that Exhibit A-2 is a true and correct the Overpayment-of-Wages Letter and that the 

document speaks for itself regarding its contents. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in 

sentence three and the bolded sentence four of Paragraph 17. 

18. Defendants admit the allegations in sentence one of Paragraph 18 of the 

Amended Complaint. With regard to sentence two, including i, ii and iii, of Paragraph 18, 

Defendants admit that Schedule A outlines the calculation of Ross’ pay during his term as APFA 

National President and that Schedule B outlines certain payments made to Ross including 

payments made in 2018 for unused sick and vacation days. Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations of sentence two but aver that Schedule C outlines overpayments made to Ross in 

2018. Except as expressly admitted above, Defendants deny the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 20. 

19. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that the calculation used for Ross’ payout for unused sick and vacation days 

included the Meal Expense Allowance (“MEA”) and Special Assignment Fee (“SAF”) but deny 

the remaining allegations in sentence one. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 19, 
9

Defendants admit that including MEA and SAF in the calculation of the payout for unused sick 

and vacation days resulted in a $5,436.47 overpayment to Ross but deny the remaining 

allegations in sentence two. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence three of Paragraph 19. 

20. Defendants deny the allegations in sentences one of Paragraph 20 of the 

Amended Complaint. With regard to the allegations in sentence two of Paragraph 20 the 

referenced “Ross Aff., Ex A” was not attached to the Amended Complaint; therefore, Defendants

lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations of sentence 3 and therefore deny the 

allegations. With regard sentence three of Paragraph 20, Defendants admit that Diversified filed 

suit against Ross to collect the $5,436.47 overpayment on January 14, 2022. With regard to the 

remaining allegations of sentence three, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny 

the allegations and therefore deny the allegations. 

21. With regard to heading “D” above Paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that Diversified filed suit against Ross to collect the $5,436.47 overpayment 

on January 14, 2022, but deny that this overpayment was also named in charges filed by 

Chinery-Burns and Lee against Ross under Article VII of the APFA Constitution (“Article VII 

Charges”) and aver that the overpayment was discovered as a result of the Article VII Charges. 

Defendants admit that Diversified’s Petition included a letter from APFA’s accounting firm 

(“Confidential Memorandum”) but aver that attached to the Confidential Memorandum included 

in said Petition was a document marked Schedule “C” which detailed the vacation overpayments 

to Ross totaling $5,436.47 and further aver that the original of Confidential Memorandum also 

had schedules marked “A” and “B” detailing additional calculations supporting the $5,436.47 

vacation overpayment to Ross. Defendants deny that the Confidential Memorandum states that 

Ross does not owe the $5,436.47 overpayment. Defendants aver that the statements in the 
10

Confidential Memorandum, “Please note the Bob Ross confidential transition agreement states 

that he will be paid all of his accrued and unused sick, and accrued and unused vacation time. 

This agreement doesn’t specify that the payments made in accordance with the policy manual 

guidelines. Consequently, these payments appear appropriate and in compliance with the 

transition agreement” refer to the total number of unused sick and vacation days used for Ross’ 

payout, and not to the calculation of the payout, which was incorrect and resulted in the 

$5,436.47 overpayment as shown on Schedule C. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 21 

of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that Diversified filed suit against Ross to collect 

the $5,436.47 overpayment on January 14, 2022, and that this overpayment was discovered as a 

result of the Article VII Charges and subsequent arbitration, which was heard on June 16, 2021, 

and November 17-18, 2021. Except as expressly admitted above, Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations of sentences one and two of paragraph 21. 

22. Defendants admit the allegations in sentence one of Paragraph 22 of the Amended 

Complaint but aver that attached to that letter was a document marked Schedule “C” which 

detailed the vacation overpayments to Ross totaling $5,436.47. With regard to the allegations in 

sentences two and three of Paragraph 22, including the allegations in i, ii, iii, and iv, to the extent 

that the allegations describe and paraphrase statements in a letter and the Confidential 

Memorandum, which those documents speak for themselves, Defendants deny the allegations. 

With regard to ii, Defendants admit that overpayment schedules previously were prepared for the 

other three former national officers in Ross’ administration, which showed that the former 

officers’ payout for unused sick and vacation days was calculated incorrectly due to the inclusion 

of the Meal Expense Allowance (“MEA”) and Special Assignment Fee (“SAF”) and resulted in 

an overpayment that each former officer was requested to repay to APFA. With regard to iii, 
11

Defendants admit that the quoted language appears in the Confidential Memorandum but deny 

the remaining allegations, and aver that the quoted statements refer to the total number of unused 

sick and vacation days used for Ross’ payout, and not to the calculation of the payout, which was 

incorrect due to the inclusion of MEA and SAF and resulted in the $5,436.47 overpayment as 

shown on Schedule C. Except as expressly admitted above, Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations in this paragraph. 

23. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint, and 

specifically deny that APFA’s independent accounting firm concluded that Ross was paid 

correctly under the Transition Agreement and does not owe the $5,436.47 overpayment and aver 

that Schedule C attached to the Confidential Memorandum contains the accounting firm’s 

calculation of the $5,436.47 overpayment. Defendants further aver, as set forth in Defendant 

APFA’s counterclaim, that the Arbitrator’s Decisions and Orders states that Ross owes and is 

ordered to pay the $5,436.47 overpayment to APFA, that the Decisions and Orders should 

remain in full force and effect and that this Court should enter an order enforcing said Decisions 

and Orders, and that Ross also should be found liable for his breach of fiduciary duty under 

Section 501(a) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §501(a). 

24. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny whether Diversified sent a verification-of 

debt letter to Ross and therefore deny the allegations of sentence one. Defendants deny the 

allegations in sentence two of Paragraph 24. 

25. Defendants deny the allegations in sentences one through four of Paragraph 25 of 

the Amended Complaint, and specifically deny that APFA’s independent accounting firm 

concluded that the Confidential Memorandum states that Ross was paid correctly under the 
12

Transition Agreement and does not owe the $5,436.47 overpayment; deny that APFA officers or 

representatives, including Hedrick and Harris, concealed the Confidential Memorandum and 

misrepresented the accounting firm’s finding that Ross was overpaid by $5,436.47 and 

disparaged and harassed Ross; deny that APFA officers filed charges against Ross under Article 

VII of the APFA Constitution; and aver that Schedule C attached to the Confidential 

Memorandum contains the accounting firm’s calculation of the $5,436.47 overpayment. 

Defendants further aver, as set forth in Defendant APFA’s counterclaim, that the Arbitrator’s 

Decisions and Orders state that Ross owes and is ordered to pay the $5,436.47 overpayment to 

APFA, that the Decisions and Orders should remain in full force and effect and that this Court 

should enter an order enforcing said Decisions and Orders, and that Ross also should be found 

liable for his breach of fiduciary duty under Section 501(a) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §501(a). 

With regard to sentence five of Paragraph 25, Defendants admit that former APFA General 

Counsel Margot Nikitas (“Nikitas”) was present at the December 1, 2020, Executive Committee 

meeting and at each day of the Chinery-Lee v. Ross Article VII Charges arbitration hearing but 

deny the remaining allegations of sentence five and aver that the accounting firm’s “true 

finding[]” was that Ross was overpaid by $5,436.47. Except as expressly admitted above, 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 

26. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that the Arbitrator issued a Decision and Order finding against Ross and 

ordering relief including monetary damages and fines, which total at least $27,631.60, but deny 

that the “Overpayment of Wages” letter misrepresented that the APFA Board of Directors found 

that Ross was overpaid by $5,436.37 in 2018. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 26, 

Defendants admit that Nena Martin (“Martin”) was a member of the APFA Board of Directors 
13

and was present at its meeting on October 27-28, 2020, where Ross’s $5,436.47 overpayment 

was discussed, and at the APFA Executive Committee meeting on December 1, 2020. With 

regard to the allegations in sentence three of Paragraph 26, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge 

to form a belief about what Martin did or did not attest to and therefore deny these allegations. 

Defendants deny the allegations in sentence four of Paragraph 26 but aver that the Board of 

Directors reviewed the $5,436.47 overpayment, including Schedules A-C that were prepared by 

APFA’s independent accountant, in an off-record discussion, and at the conclusion of the 

discussion the Board of Directors instructed Harris to serve a demand on Ross to repay the 

$5,436.47 overpayment. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence five of Paragraph 26. With 

regard to sentence six of Paragraph 26, Defendants admit that no formal action was taken by the 

APFA Board of Directors at its October 27-28, 2020, meeting with respect to the $5,436.47 

overpayment Ross owes to APFA but deny the remaining allegations in this sentence. Except as 

expressly admitted above, Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 

27. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that Martin attended the December 1, 2020, APFA Executive Committee 

meeting and that the Executive Committee found the Article VII Charges to be timely, specific 

and valid at that meeting, but Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief about what 

Martin did or did not attest to and therefore deny the remaining allegations in sentence one. 

With regard to the allegations in sentences two and three of Paragraph 27, Defendants lack 

sufficient knowledge to form a belief about what Martin did or did not attest to and therefore 

deny the allegations. However, Defendants aver that at its October 27-28, 2020, meeting, the 

Board of Directors reviewed the $5,436.47 overpayment, including Schedules A-C that were 

prepared by APFA’s independent accountant, in an off-record discussion, and at the conclusion 
14

of the discussion the Board of Directors instructed Harris to serve a demand on Ross to repay the 

$5,436.47 overpayment. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence four of Paragraph 27. 

28. With regard to heading “E” above Paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that the APFA Executive Committee found the Article VII Charges to be 

timely, specific and valid and referred the case to the Article VII Arbitrator per the APFA 

Constitution but deny that the APFA Board of Directors made any findings against Ross with 

respect to the Article VII Charges, and aver that APFA Constitution Article VII, Section 3 tasks 

the Executive Committee with reviewing charges for timeliness, specificity and validity. 

Defendants admit the allegations in sentences one and two of Paragraph 28. With regard to 

sentence three of Paragraph 28, this sentence states a legal conclusion to which no response is 

required, but to the extent a response is required Defendants admit that charges brought under 

Article VII are administratively dismissed if the charging or charged member retires while the 

charges are pending. Defendants deny the allegations in sentences four and five of Paragraph 28. 

29. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that Chinery-Burns and Lee filed Article VII Charges against Ross on 

November 18, 2020, for violations including misuse of his union credit card and overpayment 

based on the formula used to calculate Ross’ payout of unused sick and vacation days, but 

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations in sentence one 

and therefore deny the allegations. Defendants admit the allegations in sentence two of 

Paragraph 29. With regard to sentence three of Paragraph 29, Defendants admit that at its 

December 1, 2020 meeting the APFA Executive Committee found the Article VII Charges to be 

timely, specific and valid, but deny that Ross had not received notice of the Article VII Charges 

prior to December 1, 2020, and aver that on November 19, 2020, APFA National Secretary Josh 
15

Black (“Black”) sent Ross a letter via certified mail, return receipt requested, notifying Ross of 

the Article VII Charges filed on November 18, 2020, and enclosing a copy of the charges. 

Defendants further aver that the certified mail receipt was returned to APFA headquarters, 

indicating that Ross received the November 19, 2020, letter from Black with the enclosure. 

Defendants deny the allegations in sentences four and five of Paragraph 29. 

30. Defendants deny the allegations in sentences one, two and three of Paragraph 30 

of the Amended Complaint, and specifically deny that APFA’s Article VII hearing procedures 

“were fraught with due process violations”; deny that Ross’s due process rights were violated; 

deny that the charges were untimely filed; and deny that the Arbitrator did not have authority to 

hear and resolve the charges. With regard to sentence four of Paragraph 30, Defendants admit 

that Ross served subpoenas ad testificandum on Hedrick and Black but deny that Hedrick and 

Black refused to appear or testify, deny that Hedrick and Black refused to produce documents 

and aver that Ross did not serve subpoenas duces tecum on Hedrick or Black. Defendants aver 

that Hedrick was not in Dallas-Fort Worth during the arbitration hearing due to being out of town 

to care for an ill relative and aver Ross did not call Black or Hedrick to testify at the arbitration 

hearing. With regard to sentence five of Paragraph 30, Defendants admit that Ross served Harris 

with a subpoena duces tecum and that Harris produced documents requested in the subpoena. 

With regard to sentence six of Paragraph 30, Defendants admit that Chinery-Burns, Lee and 

Harris presented documents to Ross at the arbitration hearing but deny that the documents were 

in a “disorganized mess” and deny the remaining allegations of this sentence. With regard to 

sentence seven of Paragraph 30, Defendants deny that Harris failed to produce documents and 

aver that Harris produced documents requested in Ross’s subpoena duces tecum. Except as 

expressly admitted above, Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 
16

31. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence one of Paragraph 31 of the Amended 

Complaint and aver that the Arbitrator allowed Ross to question Harris about payments made 

under the Transition Agreement, which testimony is part of the hearing record as recorded in the 

official two-volume transcript. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 31, Defendants admit 

that many of the charges against Ross pertained to expenses charged to the union for a rental 

vehicle, meals, and furniture, but deny that these expenses were all related to union business and 

deny that the furniture was purchased for an APFA apartment Ross used while splitting his time 

between Dallas-Fort Worth and California. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence three of 

Paragraph 31. With regard to the allegations in sentence four of Paragraph 31, Defendants lack 

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations and therefore deny the allegations. With 

regard to sentences five and six of Paragraph 31, Defendants admit that APFA Constitution, 

Article VII, Section 2.D.1 states: “Charges based on Article VII, Section 1.A through Section 1.F 

must be filed within sixty (60) days after the accuser becomes aware, or reasonably should have 

become aware, of the alleged offense[,]” but deny the remaining allegations in sentences five and 

six. With regard to sentence seven of Paragraph 31, Defendants admit that the procedure for 

expense reimbursement during 2016-2018 was to submit expenses to the APFA National 

Treasurer for review and approval. With regard to sentence eight of Paragraph 31, Defendants 

admit that Eugenio Vargas was the APFA National Treasurer during Ross’s term as APFA 

National President but lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations in 

sentence seven and therefore deny the allegations. Except as expressly admitted above, 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 

32. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint, and 

specifically deny that the Arbitrator prevented Ross from admitting evidence relating to former 
17

APFA Treasurer Eugenio Vargas; deny that Ross was not allowed to question Harris over the 

calculations for his unused sick and vacation payout nor discuss the assignment of the debt to 

Diversified; deny that the Arbitrator “took over” questioning of witnesses; deny that Harris 

testified under oath that he was an accountant or a certified public accountant, but aver that 

Harris testified that he has an accounting degree; and deny that the Arbitrator in any way 

restricted Ross from fully appearing and presenting his case at the arbitration hearing. 

33. Defendants admit the allegations in sentence one of Paragraph 33 of the Amended 

Complaint. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint Defendants 

admit that the Arbitrator relied on evidence presented by Chinery-Burns and Lee to support his 

finding that that Ross was guilty of breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of funds, and 

fraud and that, in addition to other evidence, he considered Harris’s Overpayment-of-Wages 

Letter in making those findings, but specifically deny that the “Overpayment of Wages” letter 

and Harris’s testimony contained misrepresentations of fact. Defendants deny the allegations in 

sentence three of Paragraph 33. Any allegations in Paragraph 33 not specifically admitted is 

denied. 

34. With regard to heading “F” above Paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint , 

Defendants admit that the Arbitrator’s Decisions and Orders found against Ross and ordered him 

to pay at least $27,631.60 in damages, but Defendants deny the remaining allegations in heading 

“F”. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 34, Defendants admit that Ross’ representative in 

the arbitration requested that the Arbitrator reopen the record to receive the Confidential 

Memorandum into evidence. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 34, Defendants admit 

that the APFA Executive Committee voted that the Article VII Charges were timely, specific and 

valid and that the Arbitrator denied Ross’ request to reopen the hearing but deny that the 
18

Confidential Memorandum exculpated Ross and that Harris concealed it from the APFA Board 

of Directors and Executive Committee. With regard to sentence three of Paragraph 34, 

Defendants admit that the Arbitrator stated that “I have reviewed [Ross’s] request to reopen the 

record” to submit the Confidential Memorandum, but that he denied the request stating that he 

was “comfortable with the record as it stands now [and that t]his issue was raised and argued at 

hearing [and] I do not believe . . . additional substantive material should be introduced into the 

record as I believe the record is complete regarding the issue raised herein.” Defendants further 

admit with regard to sentence three that the Arbitrator subsequently issued Decisions and Orders 

in favor of Chinery-Burns and Lee finding that Ross had abused his fiduciary duty to the APFA 

and ordered Ross to pay APFA the amount of at least $27,631.60, and aver, as set forth in Defendant 

APFA’s counterclaim, that the Arbitrator’s Decisions and Orders stated and found that Ross 

owed and was ordered to pay the $5,436.47 overpayment to APFA, that the Decisions and 

Orders should remain in full force and effect and that this Court should enter an order enforcing 

said Decisions and Orders, and that Ross should be found liable for his breach of fiduciary duty

under Section 501(a) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §501(a). Except as so admitted, Defendants 

deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 34. 

35. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that the Arbitrator found against Ross but deny Ross’ characterization that the 

Arbitrator’s Decisions and Orders were a windfall against Ross and that an entire day passed 

before Ross was served with the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. Defendants aver that Black 

received the Decision and Order from the Arbitrator via email at 6:58 PM CDT on March 19, 

2022, and forwarded it to the parties and their representatives via email at 7:19 PM CDT on 

March 19, 2022. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 35, Defendants deny that the 
19

Arbitrator ignored evidence, but aver that sentence two of Paragraph 35 constitutes Ross’ 

admission that he used the APFA credit card to purchase furniture for his personal residence. 

With regard to sentence three of Paragraph 35, Defendants admit that APFA Constitution, 

Article VII, Section 2.D.1 states: “Charges based on Article VII, Section 1.A through Section 1.F 

must be filed within sixty (60) days after the accuser becomes aware, or reasonably should have 

become aware, of the alleged offense[,]” but deny that the charges were untimely filed and deny 

that the Arbitrator ignored evidence. With regard to sentence four of Paragraph 35, Defendants 

admit that the Arbitrator issued his Decision and Order under the APFA Constitution but deny 

that the Arbitrator did not have the authority to do so. Except as so admitted, Defendants deny 

the remaining allegations of Paragraph 35. 

VI. CLAIM: LABOR MANAGEMENT REPORTING DISCLOSURE 

 ACT VIOLATIONS 

36. With regard to Paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants repeat, 

reallege and incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

37. Paragraph 37 of the Amended Complaint contains a partial, incomplete, or 

incorrect recitation of the provisions of Sections 101(a)(5), 102 and 609 of the Labor 

Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA"), which provisions are respectively 

codified at 29 U.S.C. §411(a)(5), §412, and §529 of the United States Code, and are thus legal 

conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required Defendants 

deny the allegations of Paragraph 37 and aver that the cited provisions of the LMRDA speak for 

themselves with regard to their content. Defendants further deny that Ross is entitled to any relief 

under these section of the LMRDA or in this action. 

38. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that at its October 27-28, 2020, meeting the Board of Directors reviewed the 
20

$5,436.47 overpayment, including Schedules A-C that were prepared by APFA’s independent 

accountant, in an off-record discussion, and at the conclusion of the discussion the Board of 

Directors instructed APFA National Treasurer Harris to serve a demand on Ross to repay the 

$5,436.47 overpayment and further admit that on November 24, 2020, Harris sent Ross a letter 

stating Ross owed the $5,436.47 overpayment to APFA but Defendants deny that this action 

violated the LMRDA or any other statute, deny that Ross did not receive proper notice, due 

process and a full and fair hearing, and deny that the $5,436.47 overpayment is a “fine” within 

the meaning of 29 U.S.C § 411(a)(5). With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 38, Defendants 

admit that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 176.3(a) states: “A person may not be required by 

subpoena to appear or produce documents or other things in a county that is more than 150 miles 

from where the person resides or is served” but aver that sentence two states a legal conclusion 

to which no response is required and to the extent a response is required Defendants deny the 

allegations. With regard to the allegation in sentence two that “most of the flight attendants live 

outside the state,” Defendants admit that APFA represents over 24,000 flight attendants, many of 

whom do not live in Texas. With regard to the allegations in sentences three, four, and five of 

Paragraph 38 these allegations either state legal conclusions to which no response is required or 

are denied. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 38. 

39. Paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint contains a partial recitation of the 

provisions of Sections 101(a)(2) of the LMRDA, which provisions are codified at 29 U.S.C. 

§411(a)(2) of the United States Code, and are thus legal conclusions to which no response is 

required. To the extent a response is required Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 39 

and aver that the cited provisions of the LMRDA speak for themselves with regard to their 
21

content. Defendants further deny that Ross is entitled to any relief under this section of the 

LMRDA or in this action. 

40. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 40 Defendants lack sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of those allegations and therefore deny the allegations 

in sentence one. Defendants deny the allegations of sentence two of Paragraph 40 and 

specifically deny that APFA took adversary action and/or implemented discipline against Ross. 

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of 

sentence three of Paragraph 40 and therefore deny those allegations. With regard to the 

allegations in sentence four of Paragraph 40 Defendants admit that the Arbitrator found in his 

Decisions and Orders that certain monetary amounts had been paid to or on behalf of Ross which 

were inappropriate as determined by audit and should be repaid to APFA, together with other 

amounts which the Arbitrator found were inappropriate and should also be repaid to APFA or 

were otherwise owed by him to APFA which totaled $62,558.75, and that because of his breach 

of fiduciary duties owed to APFA, as found by the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator ordered that Ross 

should resign from any official position he held with APFA and that Ross was prohibited from 

serving in any official position within APFA for life. Except as admitted in the previous 

sentence, the allegations in sentence four of Paragraph 40 are denied. With regard to the 

allegations in sentence five of Paragraph 40, Defendants state that this sentence is incomplete 

and thus incapable of being admitted or denied, but that to the extent a response is required 

Defendants either deny those allegations or lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the 

truth of those allegations and therefore deny the allegations of incomplete sentence five, and 

specifically deny that Ross has been subject to discipline by APFA. 
22

VII. CLAIM: BREACH OF UNION CONSTITUTION 

41. With regard to Paragraph 60 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants repeat, 

reallege and incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

42. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint. 

43. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence one of Paragraph 43 of the Amended 

Complaint, and specifically deny that APFA, Hedrick and Harris disparaged Ross or violated his 

right to privacy. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 43, Defendants admit that Harris 

communicated via email to members of the APFA Board of Directors and Executive Committee 

regarding Ross’ debt. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence three of Paragraph 43. With 

regard to sentence four of Paragraph 43, Defendants admit that various APFA members—none 

of whom are in positions of APFA leadership—posted on social media about the Arbitrator’s 

Decision and Order and that APFA communicated to its membership in a “Hotline” about the 

Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. Defendants deny that APFA, Hedrick and Harris posted on 

social media about the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order and deny that any communications about 

the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order “marred” or harmed Ross or entitled him to any relief in this 

action. Except as specifically admitted above, all remaining allegations of Paragraph 43 are 

denied. 

44. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint, and 

specifically deny that Defendants violated Ross’s due process and equal representation rights; 

deny that Defendants withheld evidence; deny that the independent accounting firm concluded 

that Ross does not owe the $5,436.47 overpayment; and deny that APFA disparaged Ross and 

misrepresented facts to Ross, the APFA Board of Directors and APFA Executive Committee. 
23

45. With regard to Paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that 

Ross served a subpoena duces tecum on Harris for APFA financial documents and that APFA 

provided documents it was required to provide in response to the subpoena. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 45, and specifically deny that Ross’ due process rights were 

violated. 

46. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint, and 

specifically deny that Article VII of the APFA Constitution requires that notice be given to a 

member charged under Article VII prior to a member bringing charges under Article VII. 

47. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that APFA Constitution, Article VII, Section 2.D.1 states: “Charges based on 

Article VII, Section 1.A through Section 1.F must be filed within sixty (60) days after the 

accuser becomes aware, or reasonably should have become aware, of the alleged offense.” 

Defendants deny the allegations in sentence two of Paragraph 47 and specifically deny that Ross’ 

due process rights were violated and aver that the APFA Executive Committee found that the 

Article VII Charges were timely filed based on the dates Chinery-Burns and Lee became aware 

of Ross’s violations of the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual. Except as specifically 

admitted above, all remaining allegations of Paragraph 47 are denied. 

VIII. CLAIM: VIOLATIONS OF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT 

48. With regard to Paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants repeat, 

reallege and incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

49. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that Diversified published to credit reporting agencies that Ross was in 

collections for $5,436.47 but deny that APFA published to credit reporting agencies that Ross 
24

was in collections for $5,436.47. With regard to the allegations in sentences two, three and four 

of Paragraph 49, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny these allegations and 

therefor deny the allegations. With regard to sentence five of Paragraph 49, Defendants admit 

that Diversified attached a copy of the Confidential Memorandum to its lawsuit against Ross to 

collect the $5,436.47, together with Schedule C to the Confidential Memorandum which 

contained the accounting firm’s calculation of the $5,436.47 overpayment to Ross, but deny the 

remaining allegations of this sentence. With regard to sentence six of Paragraph 49, Defendants 

admit that APFA assigned the $5,436.47 debt to Diversified but deny that APFA’s accounting 

firm found that Ross did not owe $5,436.47 and deny that APFA furnished inaccurate and false 

information to Diversified. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence seven, and specifically 

deny that APFA and Harris gave Diversified an incorrect address for Ross. Defendants deny the 

allegations in sentences eight and nine of Paragraph 49. 

50. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint, this 

sentence states a legal conclusion to which no response is required, but to the extent a response is 

required Defendants admit that Ross brings this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 

U.S.C. 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) and (B) but deny that Ross is entitled to any relief under this statute or 

any relief in this action. Except as expressly admitted above, Defendants deny the remaining 

allegations of this paragraph. 

IX. CLAIM: BREACH OF CONTRACT/EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 

51. With regard to Paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants repeat, 

reallege and incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

52. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that Ross was elected and served as APFA National President and provided 
25

services to APFA in that role but deny the remaining allegations in that sentence. With regard to 

sentence two of Paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants admit that APFA is a party 

to a Transition Agreement with Ross that was drafted by then-APFA outside counsel and signed 

by the APFA Board of Directors and Ross on March 1, 2018. The allegation that the Transition 

Agreement is a valid and binding contract is a legal conclusion to which no response is required, 

but to the extent a response is required Defendants deny this allegation. 

53. With regard to the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint 

Defendants admit that Ross was elected and served as APFA National President until his 

resignation and provided services to APFA in that capacity but deny the remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 53. 

54. With regard to the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint

Defendants admit that Ross in his capacity as APFA National President until his resignation 

provided services to APFA but deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 54.

55. With regard to the allegation in Paragraph 55 of the Amended Complaint, 

Defendants admit that APFA allowed members including Chinery-Burns and Lee to view the 

Transition Agreement pursuant to their rights under the APFA Constitution, APFA Policy 

Manual and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) Section 201(c) 

29 U.S.C. § 431(c) and aver that the Transition Agreement’s confidentiality clause is not 

enforceable under the APFA Constitution or LMRDA Section 201(c), 29 U.S.C. § 431(c).

Except as specifically admitted above, all remaining allegations of Paragraph 55 are denied. 

56. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Amended Complaint, and 

specifically deny that Hedrick and Harris made false and disparaging comments about Ross, state 

that Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to know what comments were made by Chinery-
26

Burns and therefore deny the allegations that she made false and disparaging comments about 

Ross, and deny that Defendants sanctioned or encouraged any false and disparaging comments 

by Chinery-Burns about Ross, if any, and deny that Ross and his family suffered reputational and 

emotional damages. Except as specifically admitted above, all remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 56 are denied. 

57. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Amended Complaint, and 

specifically deny that APFA did not pay Ross the full amount he was owed under the Transition 

Agreement. Defendants aver that as stated in the Confidential Memorandum, the independent 

accounting firm found that Ross was paid out for the correct number of unused sick and vacation 

days, but the calculation of the payout was incorrect due to the inclusion of the Meal Expense 

Allowance (“MEA”) and Special Assignment Fee (“SAF”), which resulted in the $5,436.47 

overpayment as shown on Schedule C to the Confidential Memorandum. 

58. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Amended Complaint. 

59. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Amended Complaint. 

X. CLAIM: FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT VIOLATION 

60. With regard to Paragraph 60 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants repeat, 

reallege and incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

61. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Amended Complaint. 

62. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the 

allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Amended Complaint and therefore deny the allegations in 

Paragraph 62, but specifically deny that Ross has suffered any damages due to fines and deny 

that Ross has been subject to discipline by or from the APFA. 
27

XIII. CLAIM: DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH A 

CONTRACT, AND BREACH OF FIDCUCIARY DUTY 

63. With regard to Paragraph 63 of the Amended Complaint, Defendants repeat, 

reallege and incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

64. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Amended Complaint, and 

specifically deny that APFA, Harris and Hedrick made any false or defamatory statements and 

deny that Hedrick and Harris had a duty to disclose the Confidential Memorandum. 

65. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Amended Complaint, and 

specifically deny that Defendants acted with intent to defame Ross, injure his reputation and 

remove him from an APFA leadership position. Defendants further deny that Ross did not 

receive the full payment he was due under the Transition Agreement for his unused sick days and 

deny that Defendants interfered with said payment. 

66. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Amended Complaint, and 

specifically deny that Hedrick and Harris breached their fiduciary duty to the APFA Board of 

Directors, APFA Executive Committee, APFA membership and Ross. However, Defendants 

aver that in his Decision and Order, “[t]he arbitrator [found] that throughout this proceeding, 

Defendant Ross intentionally and willfully ignored the provisions of the APFA Policy Manual 

and thus, has violated and abused his fiduciary duty entrusted to him by the APFA 

membership[,]” (Decision and Order at 22 (emphasis in original)), and aver, as set forth in 

Defendant APFA’s counterclaim, that the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order should remain in full 

force and effect and that this Court should enter an order enforcing said Decision and Order and 

that Ross should also be found liable for his breach of fiduciary duty under Section 501(a) of the 

LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §501(a). 

67. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Amended Complaint. 
28

PRAYER. With regard to Paragraph i-iv of the Amended Complaint, which is the 

Prayer for Relief, Defendants deny that Ross is entitled to any of the relief he seeks in the 

Amended Complaint, or to any relief, and specifically deny that Ross is entitled to injunctive 

relief on any basis; specifically deny that the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order dated March 19, 

2022 and subsequent supplemental decisions and orders should not remain in effect and be fully 

enforced; specifically deny that Ross is entitled to recover a judgment for monetary damages for 

$1,800,000 or any amount; specifically deny that Ross is entitled to recover attorney’s fees 

and/or costs; and specifically deny that Ross is entitled to any other, further or additional relief, 

of any kind or character, at law or in equity, as against Defendants. 

Any allegation of fact contained in the Amended Complaint which is not specifically 

admitted or denied above is hereby denied. 
29

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. Ross’s claim for violation of Sections 101(a)(5), 102, and 609 of the LaborManagement Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S. Code §§ 411(a)(5), 412, and 

529, the only subject matter jurisdictional bases asserted by Ross in Paragraph 9 of the Amended 

Complaint, fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted because those statutory 

provisions provide subject matter jurisdiction for judicial review of internal, union-conducted 

disciplinary proceedings not jurisdiction for judicial review of third-party arbitration awards the 

Union is not a party to. Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 6, 493 U.S. 67, 92-94 (1989); 

Guidry v. Operating Engineers Local 406, 907 F.2d 1491, 1492 (5th Cir. 1990). Webster v. 

United Auto Workers Local 5, 394 F. 3d 436, 441 (6th Cir. 2005); Hackenburg v. Boilermakers, 

694 F. 2d 1237, 1239 (10th Cir. 1982); Bass v. Int’l Bro. of Boilermakers, 630 F. 2d 1058, 1066 

(6th Cir. 1980); Kirk v. Transport Workers Union, 934 F. Supp. 775, 785 (S.D. Tex. 1995); Ryals 

v. ILA Local 1771, 33 F. Supp. 3d 634, 639-40 (D.S.C. 2014). 

2. Ross’ attempt to relitigate and collaterally attack the Arbitrator’s Decision and 

Order fails because it violates the federal principle of judicial deferral to labor arbitration 

decisions. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597-99 

(1960); Teamsters Local 5 v. Formosa Plastics Corp., 363 F.3d 368, 370-71 (5th Cir. 2004); Lalo 

LLC v. Hawk Apparel Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72218, 2002 WL 1173801 at *5-6 (N.D. Tex. 

2022). 

3. Ross’ attempt to relitigate and collaterally attack the Arbitrator’s Decision and 

Order fails because it violates the well-settled federal principle of judicial deference to internal 

union proceedings. Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953); Carr v. ALPA, 866 
30

F.3d 597, 602-03 and n.16 (5th Cir. 2017); O'Neill v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 939 F.2d 1199, 1206 

(5th Cir. 1991); Newell v. IBEW, 789 F.2d 1186, 1189 (5th Cir. 1986). 

4. Ross’ claims of violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Credit 

Collection Practices Act, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, interference 

with contract and breach of fiduciary duty fail because they are merely attempts to negate, 

overrule and avoid the decision and remedy imposed by the Arbitrator and are therefore 

preempted by Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, 

et seq. (§301) and federal labor law governing the conduct of internal union affairs. Tate v. 

Steelworkers Local 8363, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1545423, 2021 WL 3633472 at *16 and n. 103 

(E.D. La. 2021) (citing authorities); Bowers v. United Ass’n, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27280 at 

*26-28 (S.D. Tex. 2009); Martin v. Dist. No.1 Marine Eng’rs Beneficial Ass’n, 1994 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 1068, 1994 WL 34044 at *6-8 (E.D. La. 1994). 

5. Defendants Erik Harris and Julie Hedrick are elected union representatives and 

are not liable for actions taken in their capacity as union representatives. 29 U.S.C. §185(b); 

Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U.S. 238, 247-49 (1962); Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. 

Reis, 451 U.S. 401, 406-07(1981); Universal Communications Corp. v. Burns, 499 F.2d 691, 

693-94 (5th Cir. 1971). 

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Amended Complaint in its entirety, 

Defendants pray that the relief requested be denied and that the Amended Complaint be 

dismissed, and that Defendants may have their costs herein, reasonable attorney’s fees incurred, 

and such other and further relief to which they may be entitled. 
31

COUNTERCLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 

ENFORCING THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION AND ORDER INTERPRETING 

AND APPLYING THE APFA CONSTITUTION AND ORDERING ROSS TO COMPLY 

WITH THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION AND ORDER IN ALL RESPECTS 

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Association of Professional Flight Attendants 

(“APFA”), brings this suit to enforce a labor contract, to wit, the Constitution of the Association 

of Professional Flight Attendants (“APFA Constitution”) and the related APFA Policy Manual 

(“Policy Manual”) established pursuant to Article III of the APFA Constitution by granting 

APFA declaratory and injunctive relief enforcing the March 19, 2022 and August 24, 2022 

decisions and orders of Arbitrator Ruben Armendariz (collectively, “Arbitrator’s Decision and 

Order”) interpreting and applying the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual and which Decision 

and Order was issued pursuant to and in accordance with Article VII of the APFA Constitution 

and by which the Arbitrator ordered, inter alia, that certain APFA monies wrongfully paid to a 

former officer of APFA be repaid by him to APFA . In addition, this suit is brought pursuant to 

the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA) to recover the amount of those 

APFA funds wrongfully paid to that former APFA officer as identified in the Arbitrator’s 

Decision and Order which he was paid and is now failing and refusing to repay to APFA, all in 

breach of his fiduciary duties to the APFA and its members. 

In his Decision and Order construing the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual, the 

Arbitrator found that Plaintiff/Counter Claim Defendant Robert (Bob) Ross (“Ross”), while 

holding the office of National President of the APFA, had engaged in numerous acts of financial 

misfeasance, fraud, and misappropriation of APFA funds in violation of the APFA Constitution 

and Policy Manual and his fiduciary duty both as an officer and member of the APFA. Based on 

those findings the Arbitrator in his Decision and Order, consistent with and pursuant to the 

authority conferred on him by Article VII of the APFA Constitution, ordered that Ross be 
32

prohibited from serving in any official APFA capacity for life and required that Ross resign from 

any official APFA position currently held; ordered Ross to repay APFA the amount of 

$5,436.47, which was paid to Ross in error after his payout for unused sick and vacation days 

was incorrectly calculated; ordered Ross to repay to APFA the amount of $8,106.13 in vehicle 

leasing expenses he incurred and charged to APFA for his personal use and which were 

unrelated to APFA union business; and to repay APFA for the Arbitrator’s fee. 

In addition, because the amounts of certain other payments made to Ross in violation of 

the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual were not known or liquidated, the Arbitrator further 

ordered that APFA retain an Independent Auditor to review APFA’s financial records and to 

determine what additional amounts had been wrongfully paid to Ross in excess of that allowed 

by the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual, as identified by the Arbitrator in his decision. In 

particular, the Arbitrator ordered that the audit determine what amounts were paid to Ross for 

various personal expenses, including payment relating to a vacation, payment for rental car usage 

and mileage, and payment for other items purchased by Ross for his personal use unrelated to 

APFA business. 

 The Arbitrator further ordered that upon completion of that audit, which audit is 

ongoing, and determination and liquidation of the amounts of the payments to Ross for his 

personal use unrelated to legitimate APFA business, that Ross be ordered to repay to APFA the 

amount of each such item of expense wrongfully paid to him in violation of the APFA 

Constitution and Policy Manual. 

This suit is brought for enforcement of the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual by 

enforcement of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order in each of the above respects, which 

Decision and Order was entered in accordance with and pursuant to Article VII of the APFA 
33

Constitution and the corresponding provisions of the APFA Policy Manual and for recovery of 

APFA funds wrongfully paid to Ross in violation of the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual 

and in breach of his fiduciary duties to the APFA and its members and which he is now failing 

and refusing to repay to APFA. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to § 301 of the LaborManagement Relations Act (“LMRA)” (§ 301”), 29 U.S.C. §185, for enforcement of a labor 

contract, to wit, the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual; § 501 of the Labor-Management 

Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 501, for breach of fiduciary duty owed 

to a labor organization by its officers; 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (act 

regulating commerce); and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory judgments). Venue is proper in this 

district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 

PARTIES 

2. Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff APFA (“APFA”) is a labor organization within 

the meaning of §301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. §185 and within the meaning of §§ 3(i) and (j)(1) 

of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 402(i) and (j)(1). APFA’s principal place of business and 

headquarters are located at 1004 W. Euless Blvd., Euless, TX 76040. 

3. Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant Ross (“Ross”) is an individual member of 

APFA, and for the period from April 1, 2016, through March 2, 2018, held the office of National 

President of APFA. 
34

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

THE APFA CONSTITUTION AND THE PROCESSING OF INTERNAL UNION 

CHARGES CLAIMING VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR THE APFA 

POLICY MANUAL THROUGH TO DECISION BY AN ARBITRATOR 

4. APFA repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if they are fully set forth 

herein. 

5. Article III, Section 1 of the APFA Constitution establishes that the APFA 

Constitution is “the supreme law of the APFA.” The APFA Policy Manual is established 

pursuant to Article III, Section 2.C of the APFA Constitution. The Policy Manual establishes 

policies and procedures for matters including, but not limited to, trip removal policy, expense 

policy, officer salaries, budget policy, headquarters policy, and policies governing conventions 

and meetings of the APFA Board of Directors and the Executive Committee. 

6. Article III of the APFA Constitution vests the governmental powers of the APFA 

in the Board of Directors, which consists of the National President, National Vice President, 

National Secretary, National Treasurer (collectively, “National Officers”) and each local Base 

President. The local Base Presidents comprise the Voting Board of Directors. Article III of the 

APFA Constitution also establishes the Executive Committee, which acts as the agent of the 

Board of Directors and consists of the National Officers and five Ad Hoc members who are 

elected by the local Base Presidents. 

7. Article VII of the APFA Constitution establishes the hearings and disciplinary 

procedures of the APFA. Under Article VII, any member is subject to fine, suspension or 

expulsion, or suspension from or removal from office, for acts including failure to pay dues, 

assessments or penalties levied by the Association; willful violation of a collective bargaining 

agreement; theft or embezzlement of Association monies or property; and willful violation of an 
35

express Article of the APFA Constitution or an express written resolution or policy of the Board 

of Directors or Executive Committee. 

8. Under Article VII, Section 2.A of the APFA Constitution, any member in good 

standing may file charges with the National Secretary. The charges must be proffered in writing 

and must be specific as to the alleged act(s) and/or the Article(s) of the Constitution allegedly 

violated. 

9. Under Article VII, Sections 2.B and C of the APFA Constitution, within seven (7) 

days of receiving charges the National Secretary must serve the charges on the accused and 

accuser, with a description of all relevant procedures, and send a copy of the charges to the 

Executive Committee. 

10. Article VII, Section 2.D.1 of the APFA Constitution provides that charges based 

on the violations described in Paragraph 7 must be filed within sixty (60) days after the user 

becomes aware, or reasonably should have become aware, of the alleged offense. 

11. Article VII, Section 3 of the APFA Constitution provides that at the first regularly 

scheduled meeting of the Executive Committee following receipt of charges, the Executive 

Committee must review the charges for timeliness, specificity and validity. Should the 

Executive Committee determine that the charges are timely, specific and valid, within seven (7) 

days following the Executive Committee meeting the National Secretary must forward the 

charges to the Article VII Arbitrator designated to hear the charges. 

12. Under Article VII, Section 5 of the APFA Constitution, the Board of Directors 

appoints an arbitrator to resolve all charges filed under Article VII. The Board of Directors may 

also appoint one or more alternate Article VII Arbitrators who have the authority to hear and 

decide particular charges when the Article VII Arbitrator is not available. The Article VII 
36

Arbitrator and any alternate Article VII Arbitrator(s) must be a person expert in labor law who is 

a neutral (such as an academic or professional labor arbitrator), who has experience as a neutral 

in adjudicating internal labor organization disputes, and who has no other prior or current 

involvement with the APFA. 

13. Article VII, Section 6.A of the APFA Constitution vests the Article VII Arbitrator 

with the power to resolve all charges referred to him/her. 

14. Article VII, Section 6.C of the APFA Constitution provides that the Article VII 

Arbitrator may, on his/her own motion or upon motion filed by the accused, declare that charges 

are untimely or do not allege a violation cognizable as charges under Article VII and thus are 

dismissed without the need for hearing. 

15. Article VII, Section 6.D of the APFA Constitution provides that the Article VII 

Arbitrator may, on his/her own motion, or upon motion filed by the accused, determine that 

charges are not sufficiently specific and that they will be dismissed unless the accuser amends 

them to provide sufficient specificity. 

16. Article VII, Section 6.E of the APFA Constitution provides that the accused may 

move for summary dismissal of the charges on the ground that the accuser does not have 

evidence sufficient to sustain the charges and thus there is no need for a full hearing. On receipt 

of such a motion, the Article VII Arbitrator shall afford the accuser an opportunity to identify 

evidence that would sustain the charges. If the Article VII Arbitrator concludes, following that 

opportunity, that the accuser does not have evidence sufficient to sustain the charges, the Article 

VII Arbitrator may grant summary dismissal of the charges. 

17. Article VII, Section 6.F of the APFA Constitution provides that if at any time 

during the pendency of the charges, the Article VII Arbitrator determines (whether on his/her 
37

own motion or the motion of the accused) that the conduct furnishing the basis for the charges is 

protected by this Constitution and/or by law (including the LMRDA Bill of Rights), the Article 

VII Arbitrator shall have the authority to dismiss the charges addressed to such protected 

conduct. 

18. Article VII, Section 6.H of the APFA Constitution provides that the decision of 

the Article VII Arbitrator shall be final and binding on the accuser and the accused. 

19. Article VII, Section 8 of the APFA Constitution provides that members, officers 

and representatives shall exhaust internal remedies under Article VII for a period not to exceed 

four months prior to taking any legal action against members, officers or representatives of the 

APFA with respect to matters cognizable as charges under Article VII. 

20. Article VII, Section 6.B of the APFA Constitution provides that the 

administrative procedures for handling Article VII charges shall be included in the APFA Policy 

Manual and that such procedures shall be in general compliance with American Arbitration 

Association rules where practicable but may not conflict in any respect with the APFA 

Constitution. 

21. Pursuant to Article VII, Section 6.B of the APFA Constitution, Section 17 of the 

APFA Policy Manual establishes the policies and procedures for Article VII proceedings, 

including, among other procedures, motions to dismiss and for summary dismissal; exchange of 

documents and witness lists; stenographic record; order of proceedings; evidence and subpoenas 

for documents and witness testimony, including the requirement of witnesses to testify under 

oath; final arguments and briefs; and reopening the hearing. 

22. On November 18, 2020, APFA members Melissa Chinery-Burns (“ChineryBurns”) and Sandra Lee (“Lee”) filed charges against Ross pursuant to Article VII of the APFA 
38

Constitution alleging that he had engaged in numerous acts of financial malfeasance, fraud, and 

misappropriation of APFA funds during his term of office as APFA National President in 2016-

2018. Chinery-Burns and Lee filed the charges within sixty (60) days after they reviewed, 

beginning in September 2020, financial records from Ross’s term as APFA National President 

and became aware of the offenses alleged in the charges. 

23. On November 19, 2020, APFA National Secretary Josh Black (“Black”) notified 

Ross of the charges via certified mail, return receipt requested with a copy of the charges 

enclosed. Black thereafter received the certified mail receipt at APFA headquarters indicating 

that Ross had received the November 19, 2020, letter with the enclosure. 

24. At its regular meeting on December 1, 2020, the Executive Committee reviewed 

the charges and deemed them timely, specific and valid. The charges were then referred to the 

Arbitrator for determination, pursuant to Article VII of the APFA Constitution, and a three-day 

hearing was held in June and November 2021. Under Article VII of the APFA Constitution, 

APFA was not a party to the arbitration of the charges against Ross. 

25. Under the Article VII procedures in Section 17 of the APFA Policy Manual, the 

parties to the charges subpoenaed documents and witness testimony. 

26. During the three-day hearing before the Arbitrator, the parties to the charges 

called witnesses and submitted documentary evidence and thereafter Ross filed a twenty-five 

page brief to the Arbitrator making many of the same arguments reiterated in his Amended 

Complaint to this Court. 

27. The Arbitrator issued his Decision and Order on March 19, 2022 (Decision and 

Order, Exhibit A), concluding that Ross “intentionally and willfully ignored the provisions of the 

APFA Policy Manual and, thus, has violated his fiduciary duty entrusted to him by the APFA 
39

membership.” Decision and Order at 22. (Emphasis in original). He added that “Ross’ 

testimony was inconsistent and not forthright.” Id.

28. As one remedy for Ross’ financial misconduct, the Arbitrator ruled that Ross 

“should be prohibited from serving in any official position for life within the APFA 

organization” and required to resign from any official position he currently held. Decision and 

Order at 23. In partial compliance with the Arbitrator’s decision, Ross resigned from his 

position as the APFA local San Francisco Base President on March 21, 2022. 

29. In addition, the Arbitrator ordered Ross to repay the APFA $5,436.47 which was 

paid to Ross in error after his payout for unused sick and vacation days was incorrectly 

calculated; $8,106.13 in wrongfully paid leasing costs; and that he repay the APFA for the entire 

Arbitrator’s fee. 

30. Finally, the Arbitrator directed the APFA to retain an Independent Auditor to 

review relevant financial records relating to Ross’ family vacation, personal and group meals and 

purchases of personal items, rental car usage and mileage, and ordered Ross to repay the APFA 

for any inappropriate charges as ultimately determined by the Auditor. Decision and Order at 

23. 

31. As a member of the APFA, Ross is obligated under Article II, Section 2 of the 

APFA Constitution to “abide by this Constitution of the APFA...” Other than by resigning as 

APFA local San Francisco Base President as ordered by the Arbitrator, Ross has refused to 

comply with the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. 
40

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 

 ENFORCEMENT OF THE APFA CONSTITUTION AS INTERPRETED AND 

APPLIED BY THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION AND ORDER 

32. APFA repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if they are fully set forth 

herein. 

33. The Constitution of the APFA is a “contract between labor organizations” under 

Section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 185(a), specifically 

between APFA, the national union, and its local union bodies known as “Bases,” and is therefore 

enforceable as a “labor contract” in federal court. United Ass’n of Journeymen v. Local 334, 452 

U.S. 615, 622 (1981); Wooddell v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 502 U.S. 93, 99, 101 (1991); 

Hampton v. Int’l Longshoreman’s Ass’n, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218154 at *5-6 (S.D. Tex. 

2007). Under Article VII, Section 6.H of the APFA Constitution, the Arbitrator’s decision “shall 

be final and binding upon the accused and the accuser.” The failure by Ross to fully comply 

with and abide by the Arbitrator’ Decision and Order by refusing to repay APFA the amounts 

found by the Arbitrator to have been overpaid to Ross and/or wrongfully paid to him is a 

violation of the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: 

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES UNDER THE LMRDA 

34. APFA repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if they are fully set forth 

herein. 

35. By virtue of his position as National President of APFA Ross was a fiduciary of 

APFA under § 501(a) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 501(a). In paying and accepting payment of 

monies from APFA while National President which the Arbitrator has found in his Decision and 

Order issued pursuant to Article VII of the APFA Constitution were overpayments and/or 
41

wrongful payments of APFA funds to Ross in violation of the APFA Constitution and Policy 

Manual, and in refusing to repay those wrongfully paid funds to APFA, Ross has breached his 

fiduciary duty owed to APFA under Section 501(a) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 501(a). As no 

member of APFA is a plaintiff in this action or has brought a claim on behalf of APFA to 

recover the monies the Arbitrator has found should be repaid by Ross to APFA, there is no need 

to satisfy the procedural prerequisites for filing suit under Section 501(b) of the LMRDA, 29 

U.S.C. § 501(b). Int'l Union of Elec., Elec., Salaried, Mach. & Furniture Workers v. Statham, 97 

F.3d 1416, 1421 (11th Cir. 1996); Local 541, Transp. Workers Union of Am. v. Fudge, 2015 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 134430, 2015 WL 5664429 at *12-17 (N.D. Tex. 2015); Stewart v. Int'l Ass'n of 

Machinists & Aero. Workers, 16 F.Supp. 3d 783, 792-93 (S.D. Tex. 2014). 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff APFA 

(“APFA”) prays that this Counterclaim be brought on for hearing, and that upon full hearing the 

Court enter an Order: 

1. Granting Judgment in favor of APFA finding and declaring that the APFA is 

entitled to enforcement of the Arbitrator’s Decisions and Orders against Plaintiff Counterclaim 

Defendant Ross (“Ross”); 

2. Granting APFA injunctive relief ordering Ross to abide by, and to comply with 

the Arbitrator’s Decisions and Orders in all respects; 

3. Granting judgment in favor of APFA that Ross has violated his fiduciary duties as 

an officer of APFA in violation of §501(a) of the LMRDA; 
42

4. Granting APFA reasonable attorney’s fees, costs of action, and other expenses of 

litigation in this proceeding; and 

5. Granting APFA such other and further relief to which it may be entitled. 

Date: March 8, 2023 Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Sanford R. Denison 

SANFORD R. DENISON 

Tex. Bar No. 05655560 

Baab & Denison, LLP 

6301 Gaston Ave., Suite 1403 

Dallas, TX 75214 

Tel.: (214) 637-0750 

Fax.: (214) 637-0730 

Email: denison@baabdenison.com 

WILLIAM W. OSBORNE* 

D.C. Bar No. 912089 

Osborne Law Offices P.C. 

5335 Wisconsin Avenue N.W., Suite 440 

Washington, D.C. 20015 

Tel.: (202) 243-3200 

Fax: (202) 686-2977 

Email: b.osborne@osbornelaw.com 

Counsel for Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and 

Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris 

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice
43

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 8th day of March 2023 a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was served on the below listed counsel of record for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant 

Ross by a means permitted by Rule 5(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”). 

KERRI PHILLIPS 

HEATHER ABREU 

K.D. Phillips Law Firm, PLLC 

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300 

Plano, Texas 75024 

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com 

Email: Heather@KDphillipslaw.com 

MICHAEL R RAKE 

Michael R. Rake, Attorney at Law 

PO Box 1556 

Lake Dallas, TX 75065 

Tel.: (940) 498-2103 

Fax: (940) 498-2103 

Email: mrake1@mrakeattorney.com 

/s/ Sanford R. Denison

SANFORD R. DENISON