PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FT. WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS 

Plaintiff,

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ Case No. 4:22-CV-00343

V.

§

§ 

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, 

MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND 

ASSOCIATES, INC., JULIE 

HEDRICK,ERIK HARRIS 

Defendants.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES ROBERT (BOB) ROSS, Plaintiff, in the above-entitled and numbered 

cause, and files this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, and shows the Court: 

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This action seeks redress for unlawful debt collection practices of the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act 15 U.S.C. §§1692 d, e, and f et seq {hereinafter "FDCPA"), violations for 

the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) and (B) (hereinafter “FCRA”), and the 

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. §§101(a)(5) 412 and 

609, and damages resulting from various torts brought under state law including intentional 

interference with a contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

2. In 2016, Plaintiff was elected APFA National President shortly after American

Airlines and US Airways merged. Out of this merger grew the notion and political debates over a 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 22 PageID 1741
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 2 of 22

merger between the two flight attendants’ labor unions with the Association of Flight AttendantsCommunication Workers of America (“AFA”) on one side—the union that represented US Airways 

flight attendants among others; on the other side, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants 

—a labor union that exclusively represents American Airlines flight attendants. A power struggle 

ensued between those that supported a merger of the two unions—AFA and APFA (“AFA/APFA”)—

and those that opposed a merger between AFA and APFA. Supporters of the AFA/APFA merger

have now infiltrated APFA with the intent to take over a achieve a merger of the two unions. The 

result has been the use of APFA’s Disciplinary Procedures to victimize any union member outspoken 

against a merger between AFA and APFA. Violations of APFA members’ rights have ensued in 

pursuit of the AFA/APFA merger agenda under federal and Texas state law as well as intentional 

tortious violations that resulted in damages to the Plaintiff and his family. 

II. PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Bob Ross (“Ross”) was employed with APFA in the state of Texas and a

citizen of Texas during his employment. His current primary residence is in the State

of California; however, all events pertinent to the claims contained herein occurred

within the state of Texas. His primary residence is 4701 Hayloft Ct., El Dorado Hills,

CA 95762.

4. Defendant, McGaughey, Reber and Associates, Inc d/b/a Diversified Credit Systems

(“Diversified”), is the assignee of a termination contract between Ross and the

Association of Professional Flight Attendants (“Transition Agreement”). Its

registered agent for service of processis M S. McGaughey located at 2200 Jahan Trail, 

Longview, Texas 75604. This company is engaged in the collection of debts using

the mail and the telephone. Diversified is an entity whose principal purpose is the

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 2 of 22 PageID 1742
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 3 of 22

collection of any debts. The Defendant regularly attempts to collect consumer debt 

alleged to be due to another and are “debt collectors’ as defined by FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692(a)(6). 

5. Defendant, Association of Professional Flight Attendants (“APFA”) is the original 

party to the Plaintiff’s Transition Agreement, which formed the basis of the original 

claim. This claim gave rise to this lawsuit and may be served by and through its 

current National President, Julie Hedrick at APFA headquarters at 1004 W. Euless 

Blvd, Euless, Texas 76040.

6. Defendant, Julie Hedrick, (“Hedrick”) is the National President of APFA and can be 

served at her place of employment at APFA headquarters 1004 W. Euless Blvd, 

Euless, Texas 76040 or at her place of residence 3231 Del Monte Court, Fairfield, CA 

94534.

7. 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. 

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. Plaintiff files with this Complaint in the Northern District Federal Court - Fort Worth 

Division based on Federal Question and Diversity between the Parties in this suit. 

9. Plaintiff brings claims under jurisdiction of this action which is conferred on this 

court by virtue of 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 Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. §§101(a), 412 and 609. 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 3 of 22 PageID 1743
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 4 of 22

10. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 the Defendants conduct business in 

Texas, while the Plaintiff is a former citizen of Texas at the time, all facts that gave 

rise to the claims contained herein, occurred in the State of Texas. 

IV. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

11. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff’s recovery against Defendants have been fully 

performed, have occurred, or have been waived or excused. 

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Bob Ross was elected by the Membership in April of 2016 to serve as President of the 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants’ Union. 

12. Ross was elected shortly after American Airlines and US Airways merged. This 

created a power struggle between the labor unions for the Flight Attendants. A power struggle ensued 

between those APFA members that supported a merger of the two unions (“AFA/APFA”), and those 

that opposed an AFA/APFA-merger. The result is AFA/APFA supporters infiltrating APFA

leadership roles, and their subsequent use of APFA’s Disciplinary Procedures as a method of 

victimizing Plaintiff, and others that opposed such a merger in an effort to silence the opposition. 

13. At the APFA Annual Conference on February 28, 2018 - March 3, 2018, APFA BOD 

encouraged Ross to step down from his role as many endured a lot of questions from AFA/APFA 

members about the Chinery-Burns’s petition and campaign for Ross’s resignation. Fear of retaliation

led many Board members to support Ross’s resignation. 

B. Ross negotiated, signed a transition agreement, and reluctantly surrendered his 

Presidential position, but was subsequently voted back on by the APFA BOD in April 

of 2021. 

14. Ross conceded his position as President of APFA after negotiating on the following 

conditions: 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 4 of 22 PageID 1744
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 5 of 22

• Ross would be paid outside of APFA policy—which provides that unused Sick and Vacation

Days may be paid to officers according to a Per Diem Calculation of Annual Salary divided

by 365.

• Ross would be paid all accrued unused vacation time—rather than be limited to only the 14

days provided for under APFA policy;

• Ross would be paid all unused accrued sick time—rather than be limited to only the 12 days

provided for under the APFA policy;

• Ross would no longer be a target for undue harassment and open hostility by any of the

APFA/AFA members through a binding non-disparagement clause;

• Ross would be entitled to his privacy under the terms of the Transition Agreement with a

Confidentiality clause; and

• Ross would be entitled to moving expenses back to California in the amount of $10,000.

Ross’s transition agreement, encapsulating these conditions, was drafted, and signed on March 1, 

2018 (“Transition Agreement”). A true and correct copy of the Transition Agreement is attached 

hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes and marked as Exhibit A-1 (See Ross Aff., Ex. A-1). 

15. In 2021, Ross was duly elected to APFA’s BOD where he, again, stood as a voice

against the AFA/APFA merger. This was a threat to the AFA/APFA members who crept deeper into 

key roles within APFA’s organizational structure—eventually leading to the election of APFA’s 

National officers: National President, Julie Hedrick; National Vice-President, Larry Salas, National 

Treasurer, Erik Harris, and as the National Secretary, Josh Black. 

16. On or about March of 2019, AFA/APFA members Chinery-Burns and Sandra Lee

(“Lee”) launched an investigation into Ross, the officers that served with him, and his supporters. 

With the assistance of Harris, the APFA National Treasurer, Chinery-Burns and Lee began to scour 

all financial records from his presidency in search of any impropriety. The APFA National Officers 

granted Chinery-Burns and Lee access to Ross’s confidential Transition Agreement, including 

financial documentsthat disclosed his personally identifiable information. Thereafter, Chinery-Burns 

and Lee filed additional charges against Ross and those within his administration. Again, these APFA 

elected officials could either fight the charges in arbitration or retire their career from American 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 5 of 22 PageID 1745
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 6 of 22

Airlines as flight attendants—a bold and blatant attempt to take over key APFA leadership positions

and silence any opposition to an AFA/APFA merger. 

C. In November of 2020, Erik Harris, APFA’s National Treasurer, sent a demand for an 

alleged debt Ross owed for $5,436.37. 

17. On November 24, 2020, Harris wrote a letter to Ross demanding payment for a debt 

he allegedly owed to APFA (“Overpayment-of-Wages Letter”). A true and correct copy of the 

Overpayment-of-Wages Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A-2. (See Ross Aff., Ex. A-2). The 

following alleged factual assertions were made in the Overpayment-of-Wages Letter by Mr. Harris: 

i. The APFA BOD had met and declared in a finding that Ross was overpaid in 

the amount of $5,436.47 under his Transition Agreement in 2018 (See Ross 

Aff., Ex. A-2). 

ii. The APFA BOD’s findings were based on a review from an independent 

accounting firm (See Ross Aff., Ex. A-2). 

iii. This independent accounting firm “determined that the formula used to 

determine the daily rate for [Ross’s] sick and vacation payout was incorrect” 

(See Ross Aff., Ex. A-2). 

Every single factual assertion outlined above is false. 

18. Harris included and referenced scheduled attachments to the Overpayment-of-Wages 

Letter marked as A, B and C (See Ross Aff., Ex. A-2) (“Schedules”). The attached Schedules outline 

the following:

i. Schedule A: the calculation of Ross’s Per Diem calculation per the APFA 

Policy—annual salary divided by 365; 

ii. Schedule B: an outline of payments made in 2018 for unused Vacation and 

Sick Days in accordance with the Transition Agreement; and 

iii. Schedule C: a final spreadsheet asserted that the amount Ross was paid and 

then subtracted the APFA-Policy Per Diem multiplied by the correct APFAPolicy capped twelve (12) Sick Days per year and the maximum amount of 

his unused Vacation Days (See Ross Aff., Ex. A-2). 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 6 of 22 PageID 1746
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 7 of 22

19. The per diem calculation used for Ross’s original 2018 payout included his normal 

monthly stipends paid to all APFA officers for their Meal Expense Allowance (“MEA”) and Special 

Assignment Fee (“SAF”) and Maintaining an Office Outside Residence—a stipend often included 

when one takes vacation and sick leave. The difference between the two per diem calculations resulted 

in an alleged overpayment of $5,436.37 (See Ross Aff., Ex. A-2). There is no explanation as to why 

no payment was made for the additional Sick Days as he was entitled to those paid days as well. 

20. Nothing in the Overpayment-of-Wages Letter indicates these Schedules were the 

product of an audit or a formal review by an independent accounting firm (See Ross Aff., Ex. A-2). 

Ross was never given any independent accounting firm’s name or information to verify these 

calculations or any other information to validate these schedules, despite asking for a copy of the full 

report in the conversation Ross and Harris had, as referenced in this letter. (See Ross Aff., Ex. A, 

containing true and correct copies of email exchanges with APFA BOD requesting verification of 

debt; all documents are marked as Exhibit A-6). By the middle of February 2021, he discovered the 

debt had been sold to Diversified, after which Diversified filed suit against Ross to collect the debt. 

D. On January 14, 2022, Diversified Credit Systems filed suit against Ross for the same 

debt Lee and Chinery-Burns already filed Article VII charges to collect—except 

Diversified’s Petition included a letter from the APFA’s accounting firm stating its 

opinion that Ross was paid correctly and does not owe this debt. 

21. After the APFA Article VII Arbitration concluded, Diversified filed suit against Ross 

for breach of contract to collect the same $5,436.47 debt Chinery-Burns and Lee pursued in 

arbitration. Upon review of the petition, Ross realized that Julie Hedrick, Erik Harris, and others in 

the current APFA Administration withheld documents prior to and during the APFA Article VII 

Arbitration that would have exonerated him. 

22. More specifically, Diversified Credit Systems included as Exhibit B to its original 

petition a letter from Wood, Stephens & O’Neil, L.L.P., an accounting firm. This letter describes that 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 7 of 22 PageID 1747
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 8 of 22

APFA retained Woods, Stephens & O’Neil, L.L.P. to conduct an informal review of Bob Ross’s 

confidential Transition Agreement—a certified copy of Diversified’s Original Petition, including 

Diversified’s Exhibit B attached to its original petition, is attached hereto, and incorporated herein for 

all purposes (“Confidential Memo”) See Diversified Original Pet., Ex. B). The Confidential Memo

from the APFA Accounting Firm outlines the following pertinent facts:

i. That APFA officers, the APFA staff attorney, and APFA’s outside counsel requested 

an informal review of Bob Ross’s confidential Transition Agreement. 

ii. That these officers and attorneys requested the preparation of an overpayment 

schedule of accrued and unused Sick and Vacation-Day payments made to Bob Ross 

in 2018—similar to the overpayment schedules previously prepared for three other 

officers. These overpayment schedules used the APFA Policy to calculate the per 

diem rate of pay for each officer and capped payout for Vacation and Sick Days 

according to APFA Policy. 

iii. The most important aspect of the letter states “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 [sic] specify that the payments be made in accordance 

with the policy manual guidelines. Consequently, these payments appear 

appropriate and in compliance with the transition agreement.”

iv. Ross was granted moving expenses up to $10,000 for which he did not use all of 

these funds.” (See Diversified’s Original Pet., Ex. B).

23. This Confidential Memo directly contradicts the facts laid out by Harris in the 

Overpayment-of-Wages Letter to Ross—the accounting firm did not determine that the 

formula used to pay Ross’s sick and vacation days was incorrect. In fact, the Confidential 

Memo confirms that Ross was paid correctly under the Transition Agreement since he was to be paid 

outside of APFA policy. This Confidential Memo names those that made the request and those that 

received notice of this letter: the APFA officers, and in-house and outside counsel. (See Diversified’s 

Original Pet., Ex. B).

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 8 of 22 PageID 1748
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 9 of 22

24. Furthermore, Diversified sent Ross a verification-of-debt letter that included the

Overpayment-of-Wages Letter (“VOD letter”). (See Ross Aff., Ex. A-3). A true and correct copy of 

the VOD letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit A-3. The 

Confidential Memo directly contradicts the language of the VOD letter. (See Ross Aff., Ex. A-3).

25. A request for Schedules that misrepresent the characterization of payments made to

Ross is an attempt to acquire seemingly valid documents that the union could otherwise use to 

implicate Ross in over-payments to himself upon leaving office. APFA officers and their attorneys

however, concealed this letter and used only the Schedules, cited the accounting firm’s “review” as 

though it were an audit, and misrepresented that the accounting firm found that Ross was overpaid. 

As a direct result of these misrepresentations the APFA officers disparaged, harassed, and charged 

Ross under the APFA Article VII Constitution and pursued damages. The APFA officers and 

attorneys, in particular Hedrick and Harris,submitted the Schedules to the APFA BOD, and the APFA 

EC to mar his reputation with APFA membership. The APFA General Counsel, Margot Nikitas, 

(copied on both of these letters) was present at the December 1, 2020 EC meeting where Ross’s

Article VII charges were reviewed, as well as every day of Ross’s Arbitration proceedings—yet she 

never raised the accounting firm’s true findings to the Arbitrator, the APFA BOD, or the APFA EC. 

26. The Overpayment-of-Wages Letter further misrepresented that the APFA BOD found

that Ross was overpaid by $5,436.47 in 2018—a fact later relied on by the Arbitrator to rule against 

Ross and fine him $27,631.60 in damages (See Martin Aff., Ex. C). Nena Martin (“Martin”), an APFA 

Board member during 2011 and 2021, was present at both the APFA BOD meeting on October 27 

and 28 of 2020, which addressed many of the issues related to Ross’s charges, and the APFA EC 

meeting on December 1, 2020. (See Ex. C, Martin Aff.). Martin attests that she never participated in 

or knew of any finding from the BOD that Ross owed the $5,436.47 debt or that his per diem rate was 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 9 of 22 PageID 1749
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 10 of 22

miscalculated based on these Schedules. (See Martin Aff., Ex. C). Moreover, the APFA BOD no 

formal finding was ever recorded in any meeting minutes, resolutions, and actions by the AFPA BOD

during the Fall of 2020. The APFA BOD never discussed this account, reviewed this Confidential 

Memo from the accounting firm, nor did the APFA BOD ever find that Ross was overpaid. No formal 

vote was ever held, and no formal action by the APFA BOD was ever taken as far as the record shows. 

27. Nena Martin also attended the EC meeting on December 1, 2020 where Ross’s Article 

VII charges were found timely, valid, and specific. Martin attests that neither the Confidential Memo

nor its contents were ever presented or disclosed to the EC prior to voting. (See Ex. C, Martin Aff.). 

Martin only attests that the BOD and the EC were presented with spreadsheets, similar to those 

attached to the Overpayment-of-Wages Letter and told that an accounting firm prepared them as a 

result of a formal review and found Ross had been overpaid. (See Ex. C, Martin Aff.). It can only be 

presumed that the APFA Officers and their counsel deliberately withheld the information and 

misrepresented the facts to ensure that Ross and his supporters were removed from the APFA 

leadership positions. 

E. APFA BOD and the APFA EC held that the charges brought against Ross for fraud and 

misappropriations were valid and referred the case to APFA’s internal Arbitration 

Proceedings per the APFA’s Constitution. 

28. Once an Article VII charge is filed by a member, at the first regularly scheduled 

meeting of the APFA Executive Committee (“APFA EC”), the EC reviews the charges for its 

timeliness, specificity, and validity. If the charges are found to be timely, valid, and specific, the 

charged party is then served notice and the matter proceeds to arbitration. The charged party escapes 

a judgment by either winning at arbitration or if the charged member retires or resignsfrom American 

Airlines while the charges are pending, then the charges are dismissed. It is not difficult to see how 

abuse of APFA’s Constitutional Article VII Disciplinary Procedures could thwart the democratic 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 10 of 22 PageID 1750
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 11 of 22

process of an election and victimize the very members the union seeks to protect. APFA’s 

Constitutional Article VII Disciplinary Procedures are launched to institute a culture of silence and 

obedience, and has been used to eliminate any opposition to a merger between the two unions. 

29. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, Chinery-Burns and Lee filed Article VII charges against

Ross on November 18, 2020 for violations of misuse of his credit card, and overpayment under the 

Transition Agreement among other complaints. These charges were based, in part, on payments made 

under the Transition Agreement. The APFA EC held a meeting on December 1, 2020 and voted that 

the charges were valid and timely before Ross ever received notice of the Article VII charges. 

Arbitration Proceedings were initiated per Article VII without Ross ever receiving proper notice, an 

opportunity to review any evidence, or an opportunity to be heard by the APFA BOD or the APFA 

EC. Ross was left with only one of two choices: he could resign from AA under a cloud of suspicion 

or proceed to arbitration in the hope he would win and restore his reputation—he chose the latter out 

of fear that he would not be rehired elsewhere under suspicion of impropriety. 

30. Discipline procedures conducted by the APFA, from start to finish, were fraught with 

due process violations that ran the spectrum—from lack of proper notice that charges were filed to

unequal time for presentation of arguments to the exclusion of relevant and exculpatory evidence. 

This arbitrator lacked authority to hear these charges. These charges were brought well beyond the 

60-day limitations period required by the APFA Constitution. Ross also served subpoenas on the 

APFA President, Julie Hendrick and the National Secretary, Josh Black—both refused to appear, 

testify, or produce any documents. Ross requested all documentation related to this alleged 

overpayment-of-wages debt be produced including all financial documentation related to the Ross 

Account in Collections with Diversified Credit. Lee, Chinery-Burns, and Harris served a large

amount of documentation to Ross the day of trial in a disorganized mess, and yet no sanctions or 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 11 of 22 PageID 1751
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 12 of 22

exclusion of those documents were ordered by the Arbitrator, as would be standard in any other 

official judicial proceeding. Most notably, Harris, the APFA National Treasurer, failed to produce 

any documents related to the debt demanded in the Overpayment-of-Wages Letter or any 

documentation from the accounting firm cited in this letter. 

31. The Arbitrator disallowed Ross from questioning Harris about his Transition 

Agreement and payments made thereunder. Many of the charges brought against Ross pertained to 

expenses charged to the union for a rental vehicle, meals and expenses related to union business, 

furniture he purchased for an APFA apartment he used while splitting his time between Dallas-Fort 

Worth and California. Yet the arbitrator failed to consider the evidence showing Ross reimbursed 

APFA for thisfurniture. Speculation persisted about credit card receipts for small gift cards he bought

as a “thank you” to give the flight attendants that worked flights he took, or charges for in-flight

internet use on business-related flights. These were the types of charges brought into question three 

to five years after the charges were incurred, authorized and approved. APFA Constitutional limits 

to bring charges are 60-day from the time “after the accuser becomes aware, or reasonably should 

have become aware, of the alleged offense.” (APFA Const. Art. 7 Sec. 2 (D)(1)). The procedure 

during 2016-2018 was to submit expenses to the APFA Treasurer who reviewed and approved 

expenses as valid. The Treasurer during Ross’s administration was Eugenio Vargas, who reviewed

and approved all of Ross’s charges and expenses during his term and never knew Ross to conduct 

any illegal or illicit charges to the union. (See Vargus Aff. 1-2).

32. The Arbitrator prevented Ross from admitting any evidence relating to Vargas’s

review and verification of his charges, payments and expenses that were paid per procedure. (See

Ross Aff., Ex. A-10, Arbitration Tr. Vol. 2, 192-194). Ross was also not allowed to question Harris 

over the calculations for his payout nor the review by the accounting firm, nor discuss the assignment 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 12 of 22 PageID 1752
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 13 of 22

of the Transition Agreement to Diversified,. Thus Ross could not argue APFA’s lack of standing to 

collect on an account assigned to a third party since the Arbitrator took over questioning the witness

(See Ross Aff., Ex. A-10, Arbitration Tr. Vol. 2, 212-214). The Arbitrator even allowed Harris to 

testify as an accountant. Harris did nothing to correct the record and clarify that he does not, in fact, 

hold any certification as a public accountant (See Ross Aff., Ex. A-11, Arbitration Tr. Vol. 3, 185,216-

218). Chinery-Burns was given more than eight hours over two days to present her case to the 

Arbitrator; Ross had less than three hours to present his defense and witnesses—most ignored his

subpoenas, and yet the Arbitrator made no effort to enforce these subpoenas or even require 

attendance during an arbitration hearing where Ross’s reputation, career, and property interests were 

at stake (See Ross Aff., Ex. A-10, Arbitration Tr. Vol. 2, and Ex. A-11, Arbitration Tr. Vol. 3). 

33. An arbitration award was issued on March 19, 2022, a true and correct copy of

the final Arbitration Award is attached hereto an incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit A12 (“Arbitration Award”). The Arbitrator relied on evidence presented by Chinery-Burns and Lee 

that Ross was guilty of breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of funds, and fraud citing the 

same misrepresentations reflected in Harris’s Overpayment-of-Wages Letter: 

“With respect to sick and vacation payout, the APFA Board of Directors has determined 

that Defendant Ross was overpaid in the amount of $5,436.47 in 2018 [and]. . . . [t]he 

Board’s finding was based on the results of a review from an independent accounting 

firm which determined that the formula used to determine the daily rate for your sick 

and vacation payout was incorrect. . . .[i]t is therefore arbitrator’s Opinion, Defendant 

Ross has failed and abused his Fiduciary Duty. The non-payment of these monies reveals 

Defendant Ross is not accepting this responsibility” (Ross Aff., Ex. A-12, Arbitration 

Award, March 19, 2022, 21-24). 

These are misrepresentations, and yet because Harris testified to them as factual, the Arbitrator 

found it truthful without giving Ross the opportunity to show evidence to the contrary. 

F. APFA’s internal Arbitration resulted in a windfall award against Ross that held Ross

liable for all charges Chinery-Burns brought against him, and Ross is now charged with

over $27,631.60 in charges and fees by APFA for the cost of an unfair arbitration.

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 13 of 22 PageID 1753
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 14 of 22

34. Upon discovering the Confidential Memo, Ross’s union representative appealed to 

the Arbitrator to reopen the arbitration and submit this evidence. The Arbitrator denied thisrequest—

despite the document’s exculpatory nature, Harris’ concealment of it from the APFA BOD and EC—

who voted and deemed the Article VII charges valid—and APFA’s lack of disclosure of this 

document and others during the Arbitration. The Arbitrator did not find the evidence pertinent to any 

of the charges brought against Ross, then proceeded to find him guilty of fraud, misappropriation of 

funds, and breach of a fiduciary duty, and rendered an arbitration award in favor of Chinery-Burns 

and Lee for at least $27,631.60. 

35. When the arbitrator rendered the award, the result was a windfall against Ross, for 

which an entire day passed before he was ever served with the verdict. The arbitrator ignored any 

evidence that Ross previously paid for the furniture charged on the company card. The arbitrator

further ignored any evidence that all charges were filed outside of the 60-day window required by the 

Art. 7, Sec. 2(D)(1) of the APFA Constitution. This would mean that the charges were not timely 

filed with the union, and thus Chinery-Burns and Lee were prohibited from filing their charges before 

ever being heard by the Executive Committee. 

VI. CLAIM: LABOR MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND

DISCLOSURE ACT VIOLATIONS

36. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above.

37. Under 29 U.S.C. §411 states that “[a]ny person whose rights secured by the provisions of 

this title have been infringed by any violation of this title may bring a civil action in a 

district court of the United States for such relief (including injunctions) as may be 

appropriate. Under 29 U.S.C §529 states that [i]t shall be unlawful for any labor 

organization, or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative of a labor 

organization, or any employee thereof to fine, suspend, expel, or otherwise discipline any 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 14 of 22 PageID 1754
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 15 of 22

of its members for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of this 

chapter.” Any such action against a labor organization shall be brought in the district 

court of the United States for the district where the alleged violation occurred, or where 

the principal office of such labor organization is located.” This act provides that no 

member of any labor organization may be fined in any way except for nonpayment of 

dues, unless notice, an opportunity to prepare a defense and a full and fair hearing is 

given to the person (29 U.S.C. §411 (a)(5)). 

38. Defendant, APFA, claimed that the APFA BOD found that Plaintiff, Ross, owed 

$5,436.37, in the Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, which is a violation of this section 

of the LMRDA §411(a)(5), as Plaintiff never received proper notice, due process 

or a full and fair hearing before being assessed with a fine or fee. There is no 

requirement for anyone not living within 150 miles of the arbitration site to comply 

with subpoenas, however most of the flight attendants live outside the state. 

Furthermore, restriction of documents and document discovery cannot be 

compelled by the charged-party, and thus restricting financial documents can 

become a basis for APFA to deny request for documents subject to Arbitration 

proceedings. It is a violation of LMRDA to not offer a full and fair hearing on the 

matter, and yet a charged party is not entitled to compel the evidence needed to 

absolve oneself. Further, it is a violation of LMRDA to conceal the full financial 

documents associated with the accounting firm’s review of Ross’s debt and conceal 

the letter from the APFA accounting firm finding Plaintiff was paid correctly under 

the terms of his Transition Agreement by Defendant, APFA. 

39. Under 29 U.S.C. §411 (a)(2) states that “[e]very member of any labor organization 

shall have the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 15 of 22 PageID 1755
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 16 of 22

any views, arguments, or opinions; and to express at meetings of the labor 

organization his views, upon candidates in an election of the labor organization or 

upon any business properly before the meeting, subject to the organization's 

established and reasonable rules pertaining to the conduct of meetings.” (29 U.S.C. 

§411 (a)(2)).

40. Ross made multiple public announcements, beginning the day he took office on

April 1, 2016, against a proposed merger of the two unions: AFA and APFA. The

union took adversary action and implemented discipline against Ross. Ross

suffered a substantial amount of damages a result of the disciplinary measures

taken. He has been fined for $62,558.75, he has been forced to step down from his

position as a Board of Director’s member, and he has been barred from holding

hold any elected union position for life. and the subsequent public announcements

of the discipline, including damage to his credit report, his reputation, and costs of

the arbitration.

VII. CLAIM: BREACH OF UNION CONSITUTION

41. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above.

42. The APFA Constitution provides in Art. II §3 (C)-(D) provides that all members shall

have the right to individual privacy, due process and equal representation.

43. Defendants, APFA, Hedrick and Harris, violated Plaintiff’s, Ross’s, rights to privacy by

publicizing and disparaging him regarding debts that he owed to the union and its

members. Harris, the APFA National Treasurer, emailed APFA leadership, directors, and

committee members about Plaintiff’s debt. These emails harassed him publicly over a

debt in dispute. Further, social media posts to APFA membership were posted by various

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 16 of 22 PageID 1756
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 17 of 22

members as well as a hotline announcement that marred Plaintiff after the announcement 

of the arbitration award. 

44. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process and equal representation rights intentionally 

when it withheld evidence from the accounting firm that its opinion was that he did not 

owe the debt under his Transition Agreement. APFA further violated due process by 

misrepresenting the facts to Plaintiff and the union BOD and EC to charge and collect 

monies and disparage Plaintiff. 

45. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process rights in denying him access to documentation 

he requested in a subpoena as it never gave him a copy of the Confidential Memo. 

46. Defendants denied Plaintiff proper notice as required prior to charging him with 

Article VII charges. 

47. The APFA Constitution Art. VII, Sec. 2 provides that charges must be brought 

within 60-days after a member knows or should have known of the charges that are 

filed. APFA denied Ross his due process rights by allowing his charges to move 

forward and finding them timely-filed despite evidence and testimony in the 

opening statement that these two members began investigations into Ross in 2019, 

well over 12 months prior to filing Article VII charges against him. 

VIII. CLAIM: VIOLATIONS OF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

48. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

49. Defendants, Diversified Credit and APFA, published to credit reporting agencies 

that Plaintiff was in collections on $5,436.47. Ross discovered this when he was 

refinancing his home and attempting to get a lower interest rate as well as taking

out a loan to assist in funding his children’s college education. Ross disputed this 

credit reporting in writing. After researching the debt, Diversified responded with 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 17 of 22 PageID 1757
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 18 of 22

a verification of the debt, which included the demand letter from APFA National 

Treasurer, Harris. However, the Plaintiff’s original petition proves that Diversified 

had a copy of the Confidential Memo in its possession at the time and clearly did 

not conduct a thorough investigation of the debt as it continued to collect the debt. 

APFA was the original creditor of the debt and knowingly furnished inaccurate and 

false information to Diversified that Ross owed a debt under the Transition 

Agreement despite having been informed by the accounting firm that he did not 

owe this debt. APFA and Erik Harris acting intentionally and knowingly when it 

gave Diversified the incorrect address to prevent any initial contact letter from 

reaching Ross and giving him the opportunity to dispute the debt to prevent any 

credit reporting. Harris was aware that this would mar Ross’s credit report at a time 

when his two children were applying for college and subsequent financial aid. 

Therefore, APFA, and its officers owe Ross for furnishing this information to 

Diversified for violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

50. The Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) and (B) creates a duty 

for all furnishers of information, like Diversified to Ross, that “A person shall not 

furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency 

if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is 

inaccurate.” Clearly Diversified breached this duty in reporting even after 

receiving a dispute in writing from Ross. The failure to investigate after his 

complaint and therefore, reporting information it should have known was 

inaccurate resulted in substantial refinance damages of $400,000, plus the 

associated costs and attorney’s fees. 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 18 of 22 PageID 1758
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 19 of 22

IX. CLAIM: BREACH OF CONTRACT/EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

51. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above.

52. Plaintiff, Ross, provided valuable services to Defendant, APFA, by working as

a National President for Defendant. A Transition Agreement was drafted by

APFA counsel and signed by all APFA BOD as well as Defendant, Ross on

March 1, 2018 creating a valid and binding contract (“Transition

Agreement”).

53. Plaintiff provided these services as a National President for Defendant.

54. Defendant accepted these services.

55. Defendant failed to maintain its obligations of confidentiality under the

Transition Agreement when it revealed the terms of the transition agreement

to Chinery-Burns and Lee, as well as others in the APFA membership.

56. Defendant failed to maintain its obligation of non-disparagement under the

Transition Agreement when it allowed Hedrick, Harris, and Chinery-Burns

continually publish false or disparaging comments about Plaintiff, causing

reputational and emotional damages to him and his family.

57. Defendant failed to pay the full amount due and owing under the Transition

Agreement as the calculations per the Confidential Memo provided to the

APFA BOD clearly exhibits the opinion of APFA’s own accountant that the

calculation of the per diem rate and payments were accurate.

58. Defendant suffered damages to his career and future income-based on the

reputational harm suffered in violation of the nondisparagement clause under his

Transition Agreement.

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 19 of 22 PageID 1759
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 20 of 22

59. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all of his Sick Days under the Transition 

Agreement, at the per diem rate including MEA/SAF stipends as intended in 

the Transition Agreement, the costs and expenses he incurred for arbitration 

proceedings, his reimbursable expenses APFA failed to pay him for prior to his 

termination which amount to a total $45,037.40. 

X. CLAIM: FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT VIOLATIONS

60. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

61. Defendant, Diversified, violated 15 U.S.C. §§1692 d, e, and f of the Fair Debt 

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), including misrepresentations on the amount, 

the nature, and harassing and/or disparaging comments to the debtor for the 

purposes of abuse. 

62. Defendant, Diversified, never sent and Initial Contact Letter to Ross and violated 

the FDCPA in his rights to dispute the validity of the debt and prevent credit 

reporting. The damages resulted from unauthorized credit reporting and negative 

credit reporting and collections of the wrong amount at a time when Ross was 

refinancing his home and applying for loans for his children’s college education. 

Consequently, he has suffered extensive damages as a result including the 

additional interest for the loans on his children’s college, the denial of his home 

loan, which is over $500,000 loan, and he has been forced to bring his children 

home from college do to the inability to finance their college education due to the

Arbitration Award and litigation. His family has suffered extensive damages due 

to fines, and discipline from the union. 

XII. CLAIM: DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH A 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 20 of 22 PageID 1760
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 21 of 22

CONTRACT, AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY UNDER TEXAS COMMON LAW

63. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above.

64. Defendants, APFA, Julie Hedrick, and Erik Harris made false statements to a thirdparty regarding debt that Plaintiff, Ross, owed under the Transition Agreement,

regarding the APFA BOD’s findings and regarding the accounting firm’s

conclusions about -Plaintiff’s payments under the Transition Agreement that were

defamatory and false. Based on the elected positions of APFA National President

and APFA National Treasurer, both Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris had a duty to

disclose this document and explain the results of the review, and that it was not the

same as an audit as it did not carry the weight of the accounting firm’s binding

opinion about overpayment of Ross’s wages.

65. Defendants acted with the intent to defame Plaintiff, injure his reputation, and

remove him from his position within APFA leadership. Furthermore, Defendants

intentionally and knowingly interfered with Ross’ payment under a contract since

he hasn’t received full payment for his Sick Days under the contract.

66. In so acting, Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris have breached their fiduciary duty to the

APFA Board of Directors, the Executive Committee, and the APFA membership—

but most importantly to Ross, a member of APFA in good standing.

67. Defendants did, in fact, defame, intentionally interfere with a contract and breach

of Plaintiff’s fiduciary duty to Ross as a member in good standing by causing

damages, injuring his reputation, causing him to terminate his position from APFA

leadership and causing great emotional distress to Plaintiff as a result.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 21 of 22 PageID 1761
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 22 of 22

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant hereby prays as follows: 

i. For injunctive relief ceasing all unlawful collection activity, unfair labor

practices, defamation, breach of privacy, and violations of the non-disparagement

clause in Plaintiff’s Transition Agreement.

ii. That Defendant recover a judgment against Plaintiff, and Defendants, jointly and

severally for monetary damages for $1,800,000 for violations plus additional

court costs and all attorney’s fees incurred in this cause, and reasonable

attorney’s fees.

iii. That Plaintiff recover a judgment against Defendants jointly and severally for

punitive damages; and

iv. Such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Defendant may be

justly entitled to receive.

Respectfully submitted,

K.D. PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, PLLC

By: /s/ Kerri Phillips 

Kerri Phillips

Texas Bar No. 24065906 

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300 

Plano, Texas 75024 

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

For Service of Filings: 

notice@KDphillipslaw.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 75 Filed 02/22/23 Page 22 of 22 PageID 1762