1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FT. WORTH DIVISION

EUGENIO VARGAS

Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ Case No. 4:22-CV00430-Y

V.

§

§ 

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, JULIE 

HEDRICK, LARRY SALAS, ERIK 

HARRIS, JOSH BLACK 

Defendants. Counter-Plaintiff

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

NOW COMES Eugenio Vargas, Plaintiff, in the above-entitled and numbered cause, files 

this Plaintiff’s Proposed Second Amended Complaint, and shows the Court:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1. This action seeks redress for unlawful union practices of the Labor Management 

Reporting and Disclosure Act (hereinafter “LMRDA”), U.S.C. §§101(a), 412 and 609, breach of 

a union constitution under 29 U.S.C. §185, and damages resulting from various torts brought 

under state law including breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID 3988
2 

II.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff, Eugenio Vargas (“Vargas”) was employed with Association of Professional 

Flight Attendants in the state of Texas and a citizen of Texas during his employment. 

His current primary residence is in the State of Texas and is 1616 Brookhaven Cir. 

Bedford, Texas 76022. 

3. Defendant, Association of Professional Flight Attendants (“APFA”) was the 

Plaintiff’s employer and his labor union, for which he is a member in good standing. 

It may be served by and through its current National President, Julie Hedrick at APFA 

headquarters at 1004 W. Euless Blvd, Euless, Texas 76040.

4. 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. 

5. 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. 

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

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

Blvd, Euless, Texas 76040.

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID 3989
3 

Euless, Texas 76040. (Hedrick, Harris, Salas and Black collectively hereinafter 

referred to as the APFA “National Officers.”).

III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

Division based on Federal Question. 

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

court by virtue of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, U.S.C. 

§§101(a)(5) 412 and 609, and breach of a Union Constitution. 

10. The amount in controversy is more than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

IV.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

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

performed. 

V.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. Bob Ross was elected by the Membership in April of 2016 to serve as National 

President of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants’ Union (“APFA”) and opposed any 

merger between APFA and AFA (a multi-airline flight attendants’ union).

13. Vargas was elected National Treasurer shortly after American Airlines and US 

Airways merged. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID 3990
4

14. Vargas was elected to a four-year term, took office in April of 2016 and left office 

July 1, 2018. He supported the National President—Bob Ross (“Ross”)—as he was part of the Ross

administration. 

15. On or about March of 2019, APFA members Melissa Chinery-Burns (“ChineryBurns”) and Sandra Lee (“Lee”) launched an investigation into Ross and his administration, which 

included Vargas as the APFA National Treasurer. With the assistance of the APFA National 

Officers, Chinery-Burns and Lee began to scour all financial records from his presidency in search of 

any impropriety. 

16. The APFA National Officers granted Chinery-Burns and Lee access to Ross’s and 

Vargas’s private personal financial documents, paystubs, flight schedules, credit card documents, and

rental car invoices. Among the disclosure of these documents made to the members included personal 

documents containing his social security number, Flight Schedules, bank account information, and

other personally identifiable information. 

17. In September of 2019, charges against Vargas were filed, but found to be untimely. 

In November of 2020, Chinery-Burns and Lee filed the same charges previously found untimely, 

including additional charges, against Vargas. Attached hereto and incorporated herein for all 

purposes is a true and correct copy of the Disciplinary Arbitration Award marked as Appendix 

000062- 100.

18. Under the terms of the APFA Policy and Constitution, Ross and those in his 

administration charged by Chinery-Burns and Lee, could either fight the charges in arbitration or

retire their career from American Airlines as flight attendants. 

19. The charges brought by Chinery-Burns and Lee against Vargas included charges for 

having paid Ross under a contract between Ross and APFA for his resignation as National President. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID 3991
5 

Vargas was charged with “Allowing the payment to former National President Bob Ross thousands 

of dollars in Meal Expenses Allowance (MEA) and Special Assignment Fee (“SAF”) when he was 

no longer working for APFA.” (See Arbitration Award, Appendix 000062- 100). 

20. That as part of this investigation, APFA hired an independent accounting firm to look 

into the accounts and confirm how much was overpaid to Ross and the national officers under his 

administration (“Ross Administration”) which found, as a result of their investigation, that Ross was

paid correctly (See Confidential Memo, Appendix 000101- 102). 

21. That this independent accounting review was not produced as part of the arbitration, 

nor ever produced to the APFA Executive Committee and APFA Board of Directors, while the APFA 

national officers, Julie Hedrick, National President, Larry Salas, National Vice-President, Erik Harris, 

National Treasurer, and Josh Black, National Secretary, (collectively “National Officers”) cited this 

review as grounds to pursue charges against Ross and Vargas because the Accounting Firm found he 

was overpaid, despite its obvious relevance. 

22. That the purpose of pursuing charges against Ross, Vargas, and any supporters of the 

Ross Administration was to target any APFA members that oppose a merger between AFA (a multiairline flight attendant union) and APFA. The effect of revealing extensive financial records and 

personal financial information, withholding pertinent documents from the accounting firm, and 

portraying false facts to Ross and Vargas was to silence these and all members that opposed a merger 

of APFA with AFA. 

Article VII Arbitration

23. Under Article VII of the APFA Constitution, charges are 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. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID 3992
6

24. Charges brought within sixty (60) days from the date that the member knew or should 

have known those acts that gave rise to the violation are found timely filed. The APFA EC evaluates 

timeliness based on all charges filed. If any one of the charges are filed within sixty (60) days from 

the date the member knew of the acts that gave rise to the violation, then all charges are found timely. 

If the charges are found to be timely, valid, and specific, the charged party is then served notice and 

the matter proceeds to arbitration. Furthermore, the arbitration procedures state that the National 

Secretary shall set the time, place, and location for the hearing. 

25. Chinery-Burns and Lee filed charges against Vargas outside the timeframe to meet 

the timeliness standard. Initially, Chinery-Burns and Lee filed these charges against Vargas in

September of 2019. These initial charges were filed for violations relating to over-payments to the 

officers, including Ross, for the guaranteed monthly compensation for MEA (Meal Expense 

Allowance) and SAF (Special Assignment Fee). The APFA EC found these charges were untimely 

and did not proceed to Article VII Arbitration proceedings. Chinery-Burns and Lee filed a second set 

of charges in November of 2020 for these same charges encompassed in the first set of charges as 

well as additional charges. These charges were found timely and proceeded to an Art. VII

Disciplinary Arbitration. 

26. During the Art. VII Disciplinary Arbitration for Vargas, the National Treasurer, Erik

Harris, failed to produce all pertinent documents to Vargas pertaining to his charges. This includes 

Harris’s failure to produce the Confidential Memorandum which would have shown that Vargas’s 

payments to Ross under his Transition Agreement were correct despite including the MEA and SAF. 

27. Furthermore, the National Officers, in particular the National Treasurer, failed to turn 

over all pertinent documentation to Vargas. APFA and its National Officers arbitrated charges against 

Vargas and Ross they had evidence were not valid. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID 3993
7 

28. The Arbitrator in Vargas’s arbitration refused to hear evidence, which was pertinent

and material to the controversy, and exhibited behavior which prejudiced the respondent.

29. The award was obtained by corruption, fraud, or undue means.

VII. 

CLAIM: LABOR MANAGEMENT REPORTING DISCLOSURE ACT VIOLATIONS

28. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

29. Under 29 U.S.C. § 412 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 

alleged violation occurred, or where the principal office of such labor organization 

is located.” 

30. 29 U.S.C. § 411 of this act provides that “[n]o member of any labor organization 

may be fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise disciplined except for nonpayment 

of dues by such organization or by any officer thereof unless such member has been 

(A) served with written specific charges; (B) given a reasonable time to prepare his 

defense; (C) afforded a full and fair hearing.” (29 U.S.C. §411 (a)(5)). 

31. This act further provides that “Every member of any labor organization shall have 

the right to meet and assemble freely with other members; and to express 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. . . .” (29 U.S.C. §411 (a)(2)). The APFA 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID 3994
8

arbitration award found Vargas, breached his fiduciary duty by failing to maintain

inventory lists for APFA furniture that he, in fact, did maintain, for calculating and 

making over-payments under Ross’s Transition Agreement with APFA. 

32. The APFA Arbitrator disallowed evidence of Vargas’s procedures to maintain 

inventory, then found him guilty of a breach of fiduciary duty for failing to maintain 

inventory. 

33. That insufficient evidence was presented regarding Vargas’s alleged violations.

34. That APFA’s arbitration proceedings violate the Labor Management Reporting

Disclosure Act §101(a)(5) (“LMRDA”), as Plaintiff never received a full and fair 

hearing before being assessed with a fine or fee. 

35. It is a violation of LMRDA §101(a)(5) to deny a member a full and fair hearing on 

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

be absolved.

36. APFA violated Plaintiff’s rights under LMRDA §101(a)(5) in its efforts to conceal 

the financial documents by the charging party or by the union—a party that should 

be neutral through this process from the accused member. It is also a violation of 

LMRDA §101(a)(5) for union officers to misrepresent the truth to the union’s 

Board of Directors or Executive Committee. 

37. LMRDA §529 states “It 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 of its members 

for exercising any rights to which he is entitled under the provision of this Act.” 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID 3995
9

This otherwise discipline was in violation for exercising his LMRDA §101(a)(2)

right to free speech and assembly or association. 

38. Finally, it is a violation of LMRDA §101(a)(2) for the National Officers of a union 

failed to produce financial documents of a member to another member, pursue 

charges and hold an arbitration while withholding pertinent documents and 

misrepresenting the facts to the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee 

for the purpose of silencing a political faction within the union. This is a direct 

violation of a union member’s right to free speech and assembly, and a violation of 

his right to due process. 

39. Plaintiff suffered damages, including financial, emotional, and reputational 

damages. Plaintiff suffered a loss of his right to serve in an official capacity with

the union. He was never offered the opportunity to receive a full and fair hearing 

before he was disciplined. 

VIII.

CLAIM: BREACH OF UNION CONSITUTION

40. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

41. Based on the Court’s Order issued on February 22, 2023, Docket No. 72 holding 

that the APFA Constitution is a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the 

National Union and the local airline bases, Plaintiff hereby updates his causes of 

action to establish the elements of a breach of duty of fair representation claim 

under 29 U.S.C. § 185. Plaintiff has exhausted all remedies available under the 

APFA Constitution as Plaintiff has completed his arbitration. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID 3996
10

42. Defendant, APFA, represents Plaintiff in negotiating a collective bargaining 

agreement within the union. 

43. The APFA Const. Art. II §3 (C)-(D) provides that all members shall have the right 

to individual privacy, due process, and equal representation. 

44. In addition to the statutory duty, APFA is required to represent members of the 

union fairly and honestly. Defendants have a duty to created by federal law, 

contractual law, and state law. Defendants failed to ensure the disciplinary 

proceedings were fair and honest by revealing personally identifiable information 

and concealing pertinent exculpatory documentation, and intimidating witnesses. 

45. Furthermore, APFA has a duty to safeguard private personally identifiable 

information like employee numbers and social security numbers, work schedules,

member’s primary residence, bank account and routing information, etc. APFA 

failed to safeguard this information properly by divulging it to third parties upon 

request. 

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

personal information including his protected social security number to union

members. 

47. Defendants violated this duty by failing to ensure a fair disciplinary hearing with a 

minimal level of due process and disclosing private information about Plaintiff to 

third parties. 

48. Defendants violated his rights to due process under the APFA Constitution by 

failing to appear and testify after being subpoenaed to do so.

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID 3997
11 

49. 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 Plaintiff 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 and 

Vargas in 2019, well over 12 months prior to filing Article VII charges against him. 

50. Plaintiff has been fined, removed from office, and barred from holding union 

leadership positions ever again. 

51. The award was obtained by corruption, fraud, or undue means.

52. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. 

IX. 

CLAIM: COMMON LAW BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY, DEFAMATION, AND 

FRAUD

53. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

54. Defendants owed Vargas a fiduciary duty as a member in good standing within the 

union based on federal law and under the APFA Constitution.

55. The National Officers, in-house and outside counsel, and the accounting firm 

conspired to create false documentation representing that Ross owed a debt that he 

did not owe. This spreadsheet was fabricated to justify initiating charges and 

disciplinary proceedings against the Ross Administration, which includes Plaintiff, 

unjustly. Defendants deliberately concealed documentation, and misrepresented 

the facts to Plaintiff, to the APFA BOD, and the APFA EC. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID 3998
12

56. Defendants made material misrepresentations that Ross was overpaid and that this 

was determined by an accounting firm’s review of the payments made to Ross. 

These misrepresentations were made to the Board of Directors and the Executive 

Committee prior to the Arbitration. Defendants further misrepresented that Vargas 

was responsible for these overpayments made to Ross and pursued charges against 

him on that basis, and that he failed to maintain a ledger or record of the APFA 

assets. 

57. Defendants made these statements knowing that they were not true. 

58. Defendants acted with the intent to misrepresent the facts to the Board of Directors, 

Executive Committee with the intent that these parties would detrimentally rely on 

these facts to charge and render an arbitration award against Plaintiff. 

59. Defendants intimidated, harassed, and retaliated against witnesses called to and 

willing to testify to facts on behalf of the Plaintiff. 

60. The APFA and the National Officers all knew the statements were false at the time 

they were made as they had all received the Confidential Memo. The National 

Officers’ statements made to the APFA BOD were defamatory and fraudulent. 

61. Defendants acted with the intent to injure and discredit or defame Plaintiff to 

discredit Ross and remove Ross from office. As a result, Plaintiff was charged, and 

an union disciplinary arbitration award was issued because of Defendants’

misrepresentations and fraudulent conduct. 

62. Plaintiff has been fined and barred from holding union leadership positions ever 

again. 

63. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and made in bad faith. 

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID 3999
13 

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff hereby prays as follows: 

1. For injunctive relief for unlawful collection activity, credit 

reporting, collection of the union disciplinary award, unlawful labor 

practices, fraud, injunction on ban from running for office in 

violation of the federal law, right to privacy and non-disparagement 

of Plaintiff. 

2. That Plaintiff recover a judgment against Defendants, jointly and 

severally, for monetary damages and violations which resulted in 

damages of $200,000, all additional court costs and all attorney’s 

fees incurred in this cause or upon appeal; 

3. That Plaintiff recover a judgment against Defendants jointly and 

severally for punitive damages. 

4. Such other and further relief, at law or in equity, to which Plaintiff

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-00430-Y Document 122-1 Filed 09/27/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID 4000