PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 1 of 25 Exhibit 1

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, LARRY 

SALAS, JOSH BLACK, IMA 

FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD 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. §412, Breach of Union 

Constitution, and damages resulting from various torts brought under state law including breach 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 1 of 25 PageID 1876
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 2 of 25 Exhibit 1

of fiduciary duty, 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 

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—and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants on the other 

side—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 and achieve a merger of the two unions. The 

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

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. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 2 of 25 PageID 1877
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 3 of 25 Exhibit 1

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 process is 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 

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. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 3 of 25 PageID 1878
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 4 of 25 Exhibit 1

8. Defendant, Larry Salas (“Salas”) is the National Vice-President of APFA and can be 

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

Euless, Texas 76040 or anywhere else he may be found. 

9. Defendant, Josh Black (“Black”) is National Secretary of APFA and can be served at 

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

76040 or anywhere else he may be found. 

10. IMA Financial Group, Inc. issued and holds a surety bond for all APFA National 

Officers. It’s Registered Agent for Service of Process is InCorp Services, Inc. located 

at 815 Brazos St., Ste 500, Austin, Texas 78701. 

III. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

11. Plaintiff files this Third Amended Complaint in the Northern District Federal Court - 

Fort Worth Division based on Federal Question between the Parties in this suit. 

12. 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. §412, and Breach of a Union 

Constitution. 

13. 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 4 of 25 PageID 1879
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 5 of 25 Exhibit 1

14. 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. 

15. 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. 

16. 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 that any of 

these Board members would be the next target led many 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. 

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

conditions: 

 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; 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 5 of 25 PageID 1880
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 6 of 25 Exhibit 1

 Ross would be “made whole” upon stepping down and lose no stipends, no income he would 

have received otherwise had he remained in office; 

 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 (See Transition Agreement, 

Ex. A). 

18. 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. 

19. 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, and all other National Officers, ChineryBurns 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 documents that 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 Airlines as flight attendants—a bold and blatant attempt to take over 

key APFA leadership positions. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 6 of 25 PageID 1881
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 7 of 25 Exhibit 1

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

alleged debt Ross owed for $5,436.37. 

20. 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 B. 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

Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, Ex. B). 

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

accounting firm (See Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, Ex. B). 

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 Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, Ex. B). 

Every single factual assertion outlined above is false. 

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

Letter marked as A, B and C (See Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, Ex. B). (“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 Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, Ex. B.) 

22. 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 7 of 25 PageID 1882
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 8 of 25 Exhibit 1

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 Confidential Memo, Ex. C). This letter fails to explain 

why no offset is given for his additional unpaid Sick Days. 

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 Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, 

Ex. B). 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. By the middle of February 

2021, he discovered the debt had been sold to Diversified Credit System (“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. 

23. 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 the four APFA National Officers, Julie 

Hedrick, Erik Harris, Larry Salas, and Josh Black (“National Officers”) and others in the current 

APFA Administration withheld documents prior to and during the APFA Article VII Arbitration that 

would have exonerated him. 

24. More specifically, Diversified Credit Systems included in its original petition a letter 

from Wood, Stephens & O’Neil, L.L.P., an accounting firm for Defendants that accompanied the 

graphs cited as evidence of Ross’s debt (“Confidential Memo”). This letter describes that APFA 

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

Transition Agreement attached hereto and marked as Exhibit C. (See Confidential Memo, Ex. C.) 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 8 of 25 PageID 1883
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 9 of 25 Exhibit 1

The Confidential Memorandum 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 Confidential Memo, Ex. C.) 

25. This Confidential Memorandum 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 

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

be paid outside of APFA policy. This Confidential Memorandum names those that made the request 

and those that received notice of this letter: the APFA officers, and in-house and outside counsel. (See 

Confidential Memo, Ex. C.) 

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

Overpayment-of-Wages Letter (“VOD letter”). The Confidential Memorandum directly contradicts 

the language of the VOD letter. (See Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, Ex. B). 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 9 of 25 PageID 1884
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 10 of 25 Exhibit 1

27. Requesting an accounting firm create Schedules that misrepresent the characterization 

of payments made to Ross is an attempt to acquire seemingly valid documents that the union officers 

could otherwise use to implicate Ross in over-payments to himself upon leaving office. The 

concealment of the Confidential Memo from the APFA Board of Directors (“APFA BOD”) and the 

APFA Executive Committee (“APFA EC) upon review or determination that a debt is owed is an 

intentional act against the interest of Plaintiff, Ross. APFA National Officers and their attorneys 

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

were an audit. These officers misrepresented that the accounting firm found that Ross was overpaid. 

As a direct result of these misrepresentations the APFA National Officers acted in breach of their 

fiduciary duty, disparaged, harassed, and charged Ross under the APFA Article VII Constitution to 

pursue unfounded damages. The APFA National Officers 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. 

28. 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. D). 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. D, 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 10 of 25 PageID 1885
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 11 of 25 Exhibit 1

miscalculated based on these Schedules. (See Martin Aff., Ex. D). Moreover, the APFA BOD 

showed no formal finding was ever recorded in any meeting minutes, resolutions, or actions by the 

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

Confidential Memorandum 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. 

29. 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 

Memorandum nor its contents were ever presented or disclosed to the EC prior to voting. (See Ex. 

D, 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. D, 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. 

30. 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 resigns from American 

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 11 of 25 PageID 1886
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 12 of 25 Exhibit 1

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

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. 

31. 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. 

32. 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 12 of 25 PageID 1887
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 13 of 25 Exhibit 1

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

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. 

33. 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 this furniture. 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.” 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. Ex. E). 

34. 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. Ross 

was also not allowed to question Harris over the calculations for his payout nor the review by the 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 13 of 25 PageID 1888
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 14 of 25 Exhibit 1

accounting firm, nor discuss the assignment of the Transition Agreement to Diversified. Thus, Ross 

could not argue APFA’s lack of standing to collect an account assigned to a third party since the 

Arbitrator took over questioning the witness. 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. 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. 

35. 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 E 

(“Ross 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” (See Ross Arbitration Award, March 

19, 2022, Ex. E, 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. 

 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 14 of 25 PageID 1889
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 15 of 25 Exhibit 1

36. Upon discovering the Confidential Memorandum, Ross’s union representative 

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

this request—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 $52,340.79. 

37. 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. 

IX. 

CLAIM: LABOR MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND 

DISCLOSURE ACT VIOLATIONS 

38. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

39. 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. Any such action against a labor organization 

shall be brought in the district court of the United States for the district where the 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 15 of 25 PageID 1890
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 16 of 25 Exhibit 1

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. 

X. 

CLAIM: BREACH OF UNION CONSITUTION 

39. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 16 of 25 PageID 1891
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 17 of 25 Exhibit 1

40. 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. 

41. Defendants, APFA, and the APFA National Officers violated Plaintiff’s, Ross’s, 

rights to privacy by publicizing and disparaging him regarding debts that he 

allegedly 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 members as well as a 

hotline announcement that marred Plaintiff after the announcement of the 

arbitration award. He has endured humiliation and shame for conduct of which he 

was never guilty. 

42. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process rights intentionally when it withheld 

evidence from the accounting firm and its formal opinion that Ross 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. 

43. 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 Memorandum. 

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

Article VII charges. 

45. 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 17 of 25 PageID 1892
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 18 of 25 Exhibit 1

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. 

XI. 

CLAIM: VIOLATIONS OF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

46. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

47. 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 

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 Memorandum 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 acted 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. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 18 of 25 PageID 1893
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 19 of 25 Exhibit 1

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

Diversified for violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

48. 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. 

XII. 

CLAIM: BREACH OF CONTRACT/EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

49. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

50. 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”). 

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

52. Defendant accepted these services.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 19 of 25 PageID 1894
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 20 of 25 Exhibit 1

53. 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. 

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

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

to continually publish false and disparaging comments about Plaintiff, 

causing reputational and emotional damages to him and his family. 

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

Agreement as the calculations per the Confidential Memorandum 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.

56. 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. 

57. 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 $97,378.19. 

XIII. 

CLAIM: FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT VIOLATIONS 

58. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 20 of 25 PageID 1895
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 21 of 25 Exhibit 1

59. 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. 

60. 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 because of 

the Arbitration Award and litigation. His family has suffered extensively as a result 

as these violations, damaged Ross’s career and future ability to earn income, but 

this hardship has now impacted his children’s future.

XIV. 

CLAIM: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 

61. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

62. The Defendants, APFA, Julie Hedrick, Larry Salas, Erik Harris and John Black 

acted intentionally or recklessly when both failed to correct the record, turn over 

the Confidential Memorandum and misrepresented to the Arbitrator, the BOD and 

EC that Ross owed a debt under the Transition Agreement, that Ross refused to pay 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 21 of 25 PageID 1896
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 22 of 25 Exhibit 1

this debt, and that the accounting firm found in its review that Ross was paid 

properly under the Transition Agreement. 

63. Defendants’ actions were extreme and outrageous in concealing the Confidential 

Memorandum or failing to correct the record when the facts reflected inaccuracies 

regarding the BOD findings. 

64. Defendants’ action caused the Plaintiff extreme emotion distress for himself and 

his family. Ross has had multiple hospital stays, medical issues, family and marital 

issues, financial issues, and extreme emotional distress because of the on-going 

hardship on him and his family. His wife, and children have suffered as well, 

particularly because his wife also worked for American Airlines as a flight 

attendant for twenty-eight years, thus she too has suffered extreme emotional 

distress, panic attacks resulting from damage to her reputation within her social 

circle, not to mention their children have come home from college due to the cost 

of their education has become unbearable. All of which is due to the circumstances 

created by APFA. 

XV. 

CLAIM: DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH A 

CONTRACT, AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY 

65. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

66. Defendants, APFA National Officers owed Ross a fiduciary duty as a member in 

good standing within the union. 

67. APFA further violated Plaintiff’s due process by misrepresenting facts to Plaintiff, 

to the union BOD, and the union EC all of whom voted to charge, approve a 

fraudulent arbitration award, collect monies not owed, and disparage Plaintiff. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 22 of 25 PageID 1897
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 23 of 25 Exhibit 1

68. Defendant, APFA, violated Plaintiff’s due process rights through denial of 

documentation Plaintiff subpoenaed. Defendant had a duty to disclose all 

documentation, but particularly that documentation that alleviated his liability of 

the charges. As a neutral party administering the proceedings, APFA had a duty to 

ensure the fairness of the arbitration process. APFA failed to disclose a copy of the 

Confidential Memorandum to Plaintiff, as well as others thereby breaching its 

fiduciary duty. 

69. Defendants, APFA National Officers violated Plaintiff’s due process by concealing 

documents that exonerated Ross from the charges against him. The National 

Officers had a duty to ensure that the procedures were conducted in a fair and 

equitable manner, to ensure the integrity of the arbitration process, and they failed 

to uphold their duty and breached Ross’s right to fair proceedings. 

70. Defendants, APFA, violated Plaintiff’s right to privacy when it disclosed his 

personal and protected information including his social security number to union 

members. 

71. The National Officers further breached their fiduciary duty by making false 

statements of fact to a third-party regarding the alleged debt owed under the 

Transition Agreement, and Plaintiff Ross’s conduct while in office. Furthermore, 

the APFA BOD’s findings regarding the accounting firm’s conclusions about 

Plaintiff’s payments under the Transition Agreement misrepresented the truth. The 

National Officers conspired to create documents to implicate Ross, launch internal 

union charges against him that he had overpaid himself, and claim owed money to 

the union. The officers concealed the Confidential Memo to achieve a favorable 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 23 of 25 PageID 1898
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 24 of 25 Exhibit 1

Arbitration Award, forced Ross to step down from the APFA BOD, and marred his 

reputation. This is a breach of the APFA National Officer’s fiduciary duty to Ross. 

The APFA National Officers 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. 

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

remove him from his position within APFA leadership. 

73. In so acting, the APFA National Officers have breached their fiduciary duty to 

Ross, a member of APFA in good standing. 

74. The Transition Agreement is a valid contract, and Defendants knew it existed. 

75. Defendants intentionally defamed and exposed Plaintiff’s Transition Agreement 

with APFA. 

76. Consequently, Defendants caused substantial damages to Plaintiff.

77. Defendants did, in fact, defame, intentionally interfered with a contract, and 

breached their fiduciary duty to Ross as a member in good standing by causing 

damages, injuring his reputation and charging him. 

78. IMA Financial Group, Inc. issued a surety bond to protect any third party injured 

because of the union officer’s individual fraudulent conduct. Currently, Plaintiff has 

sought to include and pursue all claims against the Bonding Company to ensure 

protecting the union. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 24 of 25 PageID 1899
PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT - Page 25 of 25 Exhibit 1

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 

 WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant hereby prays as follows: 

i. For injunctive relief for unlawful collection activity, labor practices and 

defamation, and violations of the non-disclosure and non-disparagement 

clause in Plaintiff’s Transition Agreement. 

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

for monetary damages for $1,800,000 for violations. 

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

for punitive damages, cost of court and attorney’s fees; 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 

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com

6010 W. Spring Creek Parkway

Plano, Texas 75024 

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

For Service of Filings: 

notice@KDphillipslaw.com

 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86 Filed 04/08/23 Page 25 of 25 PageID 1900