1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS, § 

§ 

 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, § 

§ 

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00343-Y

§ 

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL § 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, § 

MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND § 

ASSOCIATES, INC., JULIE § 

HEDRICK, AND ERIK HARRIS, § 

§ 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiff. § 

DEFENDANTS ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, 

JULIE HEDRICK AND ERIK HARRIS’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL 

COMPLAINT AND MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD 

AND 

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIM 

FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION AND ORDER 

Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff Association of Professional Flight Attendants 

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

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

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

Complaint and Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award” (“Complaint”); and, pursuant to Rule 13 of 

the FRCP, Defendant APFA files this Counterclaim for Enforcement of the Arbitrator’s Decision 

and Order and for breach of federal and Texas common law fiduciary duty by Ross. In support 

thereof, Defendants state as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

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

that Ross brings this action under various federal and state laws. Defendants deny that there is a 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 1 of 44 PageID 76
2

law titled “Labor Management Records and Disclosure Act” but aver that the LaborManagement Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) is codified as 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.

Defendants further deny that Ross is entitled to any relief in this action, and aver, as set forth in 

Defendant APFA’s counterclaim, that the Decision and Order issued by Arbitrator Ruben 

Armendariz (“Arbitrator”) on March 19, 2022 (“Arbitrator’s Decision and Order”) should remain 

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

Order, and that Ross should be found liable for his breach of federal and Texas common law 

fiduciary duty. 

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

that Ross was elected APFA National President in 2016 but deny that Ross was elected “shortly 

after” the merger of American Airlines and US Airways and aver that the merger of American 

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

Paragraph 2, and specifically deny that a “power struggle” ensued between AFA and APFA after 

the merger of American Airlines and US Airways; deny that AFA has “infiltrated” APFA “with 

the intent to take over via a merger of the two unions;” deny that APFA internal disciplinary 

procedures have been used to “victimize any union member outspoken against a merger between 

AFA and APFA;” and deny that “[v]iolations of members’ rights have ensued in pursuit of the 

AFA agenda.” 

PARTIES 

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

that Ross was employed with APFA in the state of Texas but lack sufficient knowledge to admit 

or deny that Ross was a citizen of Texas during his employment and therefore deny that 

allegation. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 3, Defendants admit that Ross’s current 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 2 of 44 PageID 77
3

primary residence is in the State of California but lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to 

the truth of the allegation that all events pertinent to the claims in the Complaint occurred within 

the state of Texas and therefore deny that allegation. With regard to sentence three of Paragraph 

3, Defendants admit that Ross’s current primary residence is 4701 Hayloft Ct., El Dorado Hills, 

CA 95762. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. With regard to Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Defendants admit that APFA is a 

party to a transition agreement with Ross dated March 1, 2018 (“Transition Agreement”). 

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations that the Transition 

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

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

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

Euless, TX 76040. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 3 of 44 PageID 78
4

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

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

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

employment at APFA headquarters 1004 W. Euless Blvd, Euless, Texas 76040. Defendants deny 

that Harris’s place of residence is 2100 Heritage Ave., Apartment 7104, Euless, TX 76039 and 

further deny that he can be served at that address. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

that Ross filed his Complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Texas and asserts that this Court has jurisdiction on the basis of Federal Question and diversity 

between the parties to this suit. 

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

that Ross brings this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) and 

(B), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1692 d, e, and f, and the Labor 

Management Records and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. 412, Section 102, but deny that Ross is 

entitled to any relief under these statutes or any other statute. Defendants further deny that there 

is a statute titled “Labor Management Records and Disclosure Act,” but aver that the LaborManagement Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) is codified as 29 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.

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

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

sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that the amount in 

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 4 of 44 PageID 79
5

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

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

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

deny the allegations and therefore deny the allegations. 

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

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

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

allegation is denied. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

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

one of Paragraph 12, Defendants admit that Ross was elected APFA National President in 2016 

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

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

deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12, and specifically deny that there existed a “power 

struggle” regarding a potential AFA/APFA merger and deny that APFA’s internal disciplinary 

procedures have been used “as a method of victimizing those within APFA’s union that stand 

against a merger between AFA and APFA.” 

13. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Defendants admit 

that Ross was elected to a four-year term and took office in April 2016. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 13, and specifically deny that different flight attendant unions 

have “competing interests” that “weaken bargaining power” of APFA and deny that there were 

proposals of a merger between AFA and APFA. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 5 of 44 PageID 80
6

14. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence one of Paragraph 14 of the 

Complaint. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 14, Defendants admit that Melissa 

Chinery-Burns (“Chinery-Burns”) is a former US Airways Flight Attendant but lack sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this sentence and 

therefore deny the allegations. With regard to sentence three of Paragraph 14, Defendants lack 

sufficient knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this sentence and 

therefore deny the allegations. 

15. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and 

specifically deny that Ross is an “honest...leader of the APFA union.” Defendants aver that a 

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

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

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

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

Decision and Order and that Ross be found liable for his breach of federal and Texas common 

law fiduciary duty. 

16. With regard to heading “B” above Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Defendants 

admit that Ross negotiated and signed a Transition Agreement with APFA and resigned his 

position as APFA National President on March 2, 2018, at the close of the 2018 APFA Annual 

Convention in March 2018. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in heading “B” but admit 

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

President in 2021 and took office in April 2021. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 16 of 

the Complaint (including bullet points), Defendants admit that Ross resigned his position as 

APFA National President on March 2, 2018, at the close of the 2018 APFA Annual Convention 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 6 of 44 PageID 81
7

in March 2018, and is party to a Transition Agreement with APFA, which document speaks for 

itself, and deny the remaining allegations of sentence one. With regard to sentence two of 

Paragraph 16, Defendants admit that then-APFA outside counsel Mark Richard drafted a 

Transition Agreement between Ross and APFA that was signed on March 1, 2018. Except as 

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

17. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Defendants admit 

that Ross resigned as APFA National President on March 2, 2018, at the close of the 2018 APFA 

Annual Convention, and sometime thereafter moved back to California. Defendants deny the 

remaining allegations in sentence one, and specifically deny that there existed any “AFA/APFA 

agenda” to which Ross acquiesced. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence two of 

Paragraph 17. With regard to sentence three of Paragraph 17, Defendants admit that Ross was 

duly elected, by virtue of running unopposed, as APFA local San Francisco Base President, 

which is also a position on APFA’s Board of Directors, in 2021, but deny the remaining 

allegations in sentence three. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence four of Paragraph 17. 

With regard to sentence five of Paragraph 17, Defendants admit that APFA’s current elected 

National Officers are National President Julie Hedrick, National Vice President Larry Salas, 

National Treasurer Erik Harris and National Secretary Josh Black, but deny that AFA played any 

role whatsoever in the election of the current administration and further deny that “AFA 

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

18. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Defendants lack 

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

allegations. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 18, Defendants admit that APFA 

members Chinery-Burns and Sandra Lee (“Lee”) requested to view and were provided access, 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 7 of 44 PageID 82
8

through Harris, to financial records from the Ross administration pursuant to their rights under 

the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure 

Act (“LMRDA”) Section 201(c), 29 U.S.C. § 431(c), but deny the remaining allegations of 

sentence two, and specifically deny that Harris “assisted” Chinery-Burns and Lee. Defendants 

admit the allegations of sentence three of Paragraph 18 and aver that the Transition Agreement’s 

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

LMRDA Section 201(c), 29 U.S.C. § 431(c). With regard to sentence four of Paragraph 18, 

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

therefore deny the allegations. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence five of Paragraph 18. 

19. With regard to heading “C” above Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Defendants 

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

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

sick and vacation days. Defendants admit the allegations in sentences one, two and three, 

including i, ii and iii of Paragraph 19. Defendants deny the allegations in bolded sentence four 

of Paragraph 19. 

20. Defendants admit the allegations in sentence one of Paragraph 20 of the 

Complaint. With regard to sentence two, including i, ii and iii, of Paragraph 20, Defendants 

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

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

in 2018 for unused sick and vacation days. Defendants deny the remaining allegations of 

sentence two but aver that Schedule C outlines overpayments made to Ross in 2018. Except as 

expressly admitted above, Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 20. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 8 of 44 PageID 83
9

21. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendants admit 

that the calculation used for Ross’s payout for unused sick and vacation days included the Meal 

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

allegations in sentence one. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 21, Defendants admit that 

including MEA and SAF in the calculation of the payout for unused sick and vacation days 

resulted in a $5,436.47 overpayment to Ross but deny the remaining allegations in sentence two. 

Defendants deny the allegations in sentence three of Paragraph 21. 

22. Defendants deny the allegations in sentences one and two of Paragraph 22 of the 

Complaint. Defendants admit the allegations in sentence 3 of Paragraph 22. With regard 

sentence four of Paragraph 22, Defendants admit that Diversified filed suit against Ross to 

collect the $5,436.47 overpayment on January 14, 2022. With regard to the remaining 

allegations of sentence four, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the 

allegations and therefore deny the allegations. 

23. With regard to heading “D” above Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Defendants 

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

14, 2022, and that this overpayment was also named in charges filed by Chinery-Burns and Lee 

against Ross under Article VII of the APFA Constitution (“Article VII Charges”). Defendants 

admit that Diversified’s Petition included a letter from APFA’s accounting firm (“Confidential 

Memorandum”) but deny that the Confidential Memorandum states that Ross does not owe the 

$5,436.47 overpayment. Defendants aver that the statements in the Confidential Memorandum, 

“Please note the Bob Ross confidential transition agreement states that he will be paid all of his 

accrued and unused sick, and accrued and unused vacation time. This agreement doesn’t specify 

that the payments made in accordance with the policy manual guidelines. Consequently, these 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 9 of 44 PageID 84
10

payments appear appropriate and in compliance with the transition agreement” refer to the total 

number of unused sick and vacation days used for Ross’s payout, and not to the calculation of 

the payout, which was incorrect and resulted in the $5,436.47 overpayment as shown on 

Schedule C. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Defendants admit 

that Diversified filed suit against Ross to collect the $5,436.47 overpayment on January 14, 

2022, and that this overpayment was also at issue in the Article VII Charges and subsequent 

arbitration, which was heard on June 16, 2021, and November 17-18, 2021. Except as expressly 

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

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

Order states that Ross owes and is ordered to pay the $5,436.47 overpayment to APFA, that the 

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

said Decision and Order, and that Ross should be found liable for his breach of federal and Texas 

common law fiduciary duty. 

24. Defendants admit the allegations in sentences one and two of Paragraph 24 of the 

Complaint. With regard to the allegations in sentence three of Paragraph 24, including the 

allegations in i, ii, iii, and iv, to the extent that the allegations paraphrase statements in the 

Confidential Memorandum, which document speaks for itself, Defendants deny the allegations. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 10 of 44 PageID 85
11

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

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

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

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

allegations in this paragraph. 

25. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, and 

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

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

that Schedule C contains the accounting firm’s calculation of the $5,436.47 overpayment. 

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

Decision and Order states that Ross owes and is ordered to pay the $5,436.47 overpayment to 

APFA, that the Decision and Order should remain in full force and effect and that this Court 

should enter an order enforcing said Decision and Order, and that Ross should be found liable for 

his breach of federal and Texas common law fiduciary duty. 

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

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

allegations. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence two of Paragraph 26. 

27. Defendants deny the allegations in sentences one through six of Paragraph 27 of 

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

the Confidential Memorandum states that Ross was paid correctly under the Transition 

Agreement and does not owe the $5,436.47 overpayment; deny that there existed a “clear plot to 

fraudulently implicate Ross in wrongdoing”; deny that the Confidential Memorandum highlights 

Ross’s “integrity”; deny that APFA officers, including Hedrick and Harris, concealed the 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 11 of 44 PageID 86
12

Confidential Memorandum and misrepresented the accounting firm’s finding that Ross was 

overpaid by $5,436.47 and disparaged and harassed Ross; deny that APFA officers filed charges 

against Ross under Article VII of the APFA Constitution; and aver that Schedule C contains the 

accounting firm’s calculation of the $5,436.47 overpayment. Defendants further aver, as set 

forth in Defendant APFA’s counterclaim, that the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order states that 

Ross owes and is ordered to pay the $5,436.47 overpayment to APFA, that the Decision and 

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

said Decision and Order, and that Ross should be found liable for his breach of federal and Texas 

common law fiduciary duty. With regard to sentence seven of Paragraph 27, Defendants admit 

that APFA General Counsel Margot Nikitas (“Nikitas”) was present at the December 1, 2020, 

Executive Committee meeting and at each day of the Chinery-Lee v. Ross Article VII Charges 

arbitration hearing but deny the remaining allegations of sentence seven and aver that the 

accounting firm’s “true finding[]” was that Ross was overpaid by $5,436.47. Except as 

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

28. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Defendants admit 

that the arbitrator issued a Decision and Order finding against Ross and ordering relief including 

monetary damages and fines, which total at least $27,631.60, but deny that the “Overpayment of 

Wages” letter misrepresented that the APFA Board of Directors found that Ross was overpaid 

by $5436.37 in 2018. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 28, Defendants admit that Nena 

Martin (“Martin”) was a member of the APFA Board of Directors and was present at its meeting 

on October 27-28, 2020, where Ross’s $5,436.47 overpayment was discussed, and at the APFA 

Executive Committee meeting on December 1, 2020. With regard to the allegations in sentence 

three of Paragraph 28, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief about what Martin 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 12 of 44 PageID 87
13

did or did not attest to and therefore deny these allegations. However, Defendants aver that 

Martin was present at the APFA Board of Directors meeting on October 27-28, 2020, including 

during the discussion of Ross’s $5,436.47 overpayment. Defendants deny the allegations in 

sentence four of Paragraph 28 but aver that the Board of Directors reviewed the $5,436.47 

overpayment, including Schedules A-C that were prepared by APFA’s independent accountant, 

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

instructed Harris to serve a demand on Ross to repay the $5,436.47 overpayment. Defendants 

admit the allegations in sentence five of Paragraph 28. Defendants deny the allegations in 

sentence six of Paragraph 28. With regard to sentence seven of Paragraph 28, Defendants admit 

that no formal action was taken by the APFA Board of Directors at its October 27-28, 2020, 

meeting with respect to the $5,436.47 overpayment Ross owes to APFA but deny the remaining 

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

allegations in this paragraph. 

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

that Martin attended the December 1, 2020, APFA Executive Committee meeting and that the 

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

meeting, but Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief about what Martin did or did 

not attest to and therefore deny the remaining allegations in sentence one. With regard to the 

allegations in sentence two of Paragraph 29, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a 

belief about what Martin did or did not attest to and therefore deny the allegations. However, 

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 13 of 44 PageID 88
14

Directors instructed Harris to serve a demand on Ross to repay the $5,436.47 overpayment. 

Defendants deny the allegations in sentence three of Paragraph 29. 

30. With regard to heading “E” above Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Defendants 

admit that the APFA Executive Committee found the Article VII Charges to be timely, specific 

and valid and referred the case to the Article VII Arbitrator per the APFA Constitution but deny 

that the APFA Board of Directors made any findings with respect to the Article VII Charges, and 

aver that APFA Constitution Article VII, Section 3 tasks the Executive Committee with 

reviewing charges for timeliness, specificity and validity. Defendants admit the allegations in 

sentences one and two of Paragraph 30. With regard to sentence three of Paragraph 30, this 

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

required Defendants admit that charges brought under Article VII are administratively dismissed 

if the charging or charged member retires while the charges are pending. Defendants deny the 

allegations in sentence four of Paragraph 30. 

31. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, and 

specifically deny that “AFA loyalists” have used APFA’s internal disciplinary procedures to 

“stack the APFA BOD” and take over APFA leadership roles; deny that AFA “is now poised for 

the hostile take-over” of APFA; deny that “[m]ost AA flight attendants are left without a voice”; 

and deny that APFA’s internal disciplinary procedures under the APFA Constitution “are 

launched to create a culture of silence and obedience.” 

32. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, Defendants admit 

that Chinery-Burns and Lee filed Article VII Charges against Ross on November 18, 2020, for 

violations including misuse of his union credit card and overpayment based on the calculation 

used for Ross’s payout for unused sick and vacation days, but Defendants lack sufficient 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 14 of 44 PageID 89
15

knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations in sentence one and therefore deny the 

allegations. Defendants admit the allegations in sentence two of Paragraph 32. With regard to 

sentence three of Paragraph 32, Defendants admit that at its December 1, 2020 meeting the 

APFA Executive Committee found the Article VII Charges to be timely, specific and valid, but 

deny that Ross had not received notice of the Article VII Charges prior to December 1, 2020, and 

aver that on November 19, 2020, APFA National Secretary Josh Black (“Black”) sent Ross a 

letter via certified mail, return receipt requested, notifying Ross of the Article VII Charges filed 

on November 18, 2020, and enclosing a copy of the charges. Defendants further aver that the 

certified mail receipt was returned to APFA headquarters, indicating that Ross received the 

November 19, 2020, letter from Black with the enclosure. Defendants deny the allegations in 

sentences four and five of Paragraph 32. 

33. Defendants deny the allegations in sentences one and two of Paragraph 33 of the 

Complaint, and specifically deny that APFA’s internal disciplinary procedures “were fraught 

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

existence of any “APFA[] conspiracy” that the Arbitrator “allowed...to play out”; deny that the 

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

resolve the charges. With regard to sentence three of Paragraph 33, Defendants admit that Ross 

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

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

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

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

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

hearing. With regard to sentence four of Paragraph 33, Defendants admit that Ross served Harris 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 15 of 44 PageID 90
16

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

With regard to sentence five of Paragraph 33, Defendants admit that Chinery-Burns, Lee and 

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

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

sentence six of Paragraph 33, Defendants deny that Harris failed to produce documents and aver 

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

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

34. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence one of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint 

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

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

two-volume transcript. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 34, Defendants admit that 

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

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

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

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

Paragraph 34. With regard to the allegations in sentence four of Paragraph 34, Defendants lack 

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

regard to sentence five of Paragraph 34, Defendants admit that APFA Constitution, Article VII, 

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

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

aware, of the alleged offense[,]” but deny the remaining allegations in sentence five. With regard 

to sentence six of Paragraph 34, Defendants admit that the procedure for expense reimbursement 

during 2016-2018 was to submit expenses to the APFA National Treasurer for review and 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 16 of 44 PageID 91
17

approval. With regard to sentence seven of Paragraph 34, Defendants admit that Eugenio Vargas 

was the APFA National Treasurer during Ross’s term as APFA National President but lack 

sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remaining allegations in sentence seven and therefore 

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

allegations of this paragraph. 

35. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

36. Defendants admit the allegations in sentences one and two of Paragraph 36 of the 

Complaint. Defendants deny the allegations in sentences three and four of Paragraph 36, and 

specifically deny that the “Overpayment of Wages” letter and Harris’s testimony contained 

misrepresentations of fact. 

37. With regard to heading “F” above Paragraph 37, Defendants admit that the 

Arbitrator’s Decision and Order found against Ross and ordered him to pay at least $27,631.60 

in damages, but Defendants deny the remaining allegations in heading “F”. With regard to 

sentence one of Paragraph 37, Defendants admit that Ross’s representative in the arbitration 

requested that the Arbitrator reopen the record to receive the Confidential Memorandum into 

evidence. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 37, Defendants admit that the APFA 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 17 of 44 PageID 92
18

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

the arbitrator denied Ross’s request to reopen the hearing but deny that the Confidential 

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

and Executive Committee. With regard to sentence three of Paragraph 37, Defendants admit that 

the Arbitrator found that Ross had abused his fiduciary duty to the APFA and rendered a 

Decision and Order in favor of Chinery-Burns and Lee ordering Ross to pay damages of at least 

$27,631.60, and aver, as set forth in Defendant APFA’s counterclaim, that the Arbitrator’s 

Decision and Order states that Ross owes and is ordered to pay the $5,436.47 overpayment to 

APFA, that the Decision and Order should remain in full force and effect and that this Court 

should enter an order enforcing said Decision and Order, and that Ross should be found liable for 

his breach of federal and Texas common law fiduciary duty. Except as so admitted, Defendants 

deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 

38. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 38, Defendants admit that the Arbitrator 

found against Ross but deny that an entire day passed before Ross was served with the 

Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. Defendants aver that Black received the Decision and Order 

from the Arbitrator via email at 6:58 PM CDT on March 19, 2022, and forwarded it to the parties 

and their representatives via email at 7:19 PM CDT on March 19, 2022. With regard to sentence 

two of Paragraph 38, Defendants deny that the Arbitrator ignored evidence, but aver that 

sentence two of Paragraph 38 constitutes Ross’s admission that he used the APFA credit card to 

purchase furniture for his personal residence. With regard to sentence four of Paragraph 38, 

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

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

accuser becomes aware, or reasonably should have become aware, of the alleged offense[,]” but 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 18 of 44 PageID 93
19

deny that the charges were untimely filed and deny that the Arbitrator ignored evidence. 

Defendants deny the allegations of sentence five of Paragraph 38. With regard to sentence six of 

Paragraph 38, Defendants admit that the Arbitrator issued his Decision and Order under the 

APFA Constitution but deny that the Arbitrator did not have the authority to do so. 

MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD 

39. With regard to heading “G” above Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, Defendants 

admit that Ross moves to vacate the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order issued on March 19, 2022, 

but deny that Ross is entitled to any relief, and aver, as set forth in Defendant APFA’s 

counterclaim, that the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order should remain in full force and effect and 

that this Court should enter an order enforcing said Decision and Order, and that Ross should be 

found liable for his breach of federal and Texas common law fiduciary duty. Except as expressly 

admitted above, Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this paragraph. With regard to 

Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reallege and incorporate herein by reference 

their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 38 above. 

40. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 40, this sentence states a legal 

conclusion to which no response is required, but to the extent a response is required, Defendants 

admit that Ross brings this action under the Federal Arbitration Act § 10 but deny that Ross is 

entitled to any relief under that statute or to any relief in this action. 

41. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint and specifically 

deny that the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order was “procured with the use of fraudulent 

documents and testimony that directly contradicts the Confidential Memorandum”; deny that the 

Arbitrator relied on fraudulent misrepresentations; deny that statements that the independent 

accounting firm and the APFA Board of Directors found that Ross’s payout was calculated 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 19 of 44 PageID 94
20

incorrectly are false statements; deny that APFA leadership and counsel withheld information 

that they had a duty to disclose; deny that there are grounds to vacate the Arbitrator’s Decision 

and Order based on fraud or any other grounds; and aver, as set forth in Defendant APFA’s 

counterclaim, that the Decision and Order should remain in full force and effect and that this 

Court should enter an order enforcing said Decision and Order, and that Ross should be found 

liable for his breach of federal and Texas common law fiduciary duty. 

42. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, and 

specifically deny that the Arbitrator was partial against Ross and guilty of misconduct; deny that 

the Arbitrator excluded relevant evidence, including evidence listed in the bullet points in 

Paragraph 42; deny that the Arbitrator “rushed” Ross through his evidence and witness 

testimony; deny the existence of any “exculpatory” evidence that was not considered; and deny 

that the APFA acted in bad faith or with unclean hands. Defendants further aver that the 

Arbitrator afforded Ross a full and fair opportunity to present his case and Ross was afforded his 

full due process rights under the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual. 

(The Complaint does not include paragraphs numbered 43 through 56).

CLAIM: LABOR MANAGEMENT RECORDS DISCLOSURE ACT VIOLATIONS 

57. With regard to Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reallege and 

incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

58. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Defendants admit 

that 29 U.S.C § 412 states: “Any 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 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 20 of 44 PageID 95
21

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

organization is located[,]” but deny that Ross is entitled to any relief under this statute or any 

relief in this action. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 58, Defendants admit that 29 

U.S.C § 411(a)(5) states: “No 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[,]” but deny that 

Ross is entitled to any relief under this statute or any relief in this action. Defendants further 

deny that there is a statute titled “Labor Management Records and Disclosure Act,” but aver that 

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

401 et seq. Defendants deny that Ross is entitled to any relief under the LMRDA. 

59. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 59, Defendants admit that on November 

24, 2020, APFA National Treasurer Harris sent Ross a letter stating Ross owed the $5,436.47 

overpayment to APFA but deny that this action violated the LMRDA or any other statute, deny 

that Ross did not receive proper notice, due process and a full and fair hearing, and deny that the 

$5,436.47 overpayment is a “fine” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C § 411(a)(5). With regard to 

sentence two of Paragraph 59, Defendants admit that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 176.3(a) 

states: “A person may not be required by subpoena to appear or produce documents or other 

things in a county that is more than 150 miles from where the person resides or is served.” With 

regard to the allegation “most of the flight attendants live outside the state,” Defendants admit 

that APFA represents over 24,000 flight attendants, many of whom do not live in Texas. 

Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 59. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 21 of 44 PageID 96
22

CLAIM: BREACH OF UNION CONSTITUTION 

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

incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

61. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint. 

62. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence one of Paragraph 62 of the 

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

right to privacy. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 62, Defendants admit that Harris 

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

regarding Ross’s debt. Defendants deny the allegations in sentence three of Paragraph 62. With 

regard to sentence four of Paragraph 62, Defendants admit that various APFA members—none 

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

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

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

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

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

action. 

63. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, and 

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

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

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

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

64. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, Defendants admit 

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 22 of 44 PageID 97
23

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

deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 64, and specifically deny that Ross’s due process 

rights were violated. 

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

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

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

66. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, Defendants admit 

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

Section 1.A through Section 1.F must be filed within sixty (60) days after the accuser becomes 

aware, or reasonably should have become aware, of the alleged offense.” Defendants deny the 

allegations in sentence two of Paragraph 66 and aver that the APFA Executive Committee found 

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

aware of Ross’s violations of the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual. 

CLAIM: VIOLATIONS OF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT 

67. With regard to Paragraph 67 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reallege and 

incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

68. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 68 of the Complaint, Defendants admit 

that Diversified published to credit reporting agencies that Ross was in collections for $5,436.47 

but deny that APFA published to credit reporting agencies that Ross was in collections for 

$5,436.47. With regard to the allegations in sentences two, three and four of Paragraph 68, 

Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny these allegations and therefor deny the 

allegations. With regard to sentence five of Paragraph 68, Defendants admit that Diversified 

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 23 of 44 PageID 98
24

$5,436.47 but deny the remaining allegations of this sentence. With regard to sentence six of 

Paragraph 68, Defendants admit that APFA assigned the $5,436.47 debt to Diversified but deny 

that APFA’s accounting firm found that Ross did not owe $5,436.47 and deny that APFA 

furnished inaccurate and false information to Diversified. Defendants deny the allegations in 

sentence seven, and specifically deny that APFA and Harris gave Diversified an incorrect 

address for Ross. Defendants deny the allegations in sentences eight and nine of Paragraph 68. 

69. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 69, this sentence states a legal 

conclusion to which no response is required, but to the extent a response is required Defendants 

admit that Ross brings this action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 

(a)(1)(A) and (B) but deny that Ross is entitled to any relief under this statute or any relief in this 

action. Except as expressly admitted above, Defendants deny the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph. 

CLAIM: BREACH OF CONTRACT/EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 

69. With regard to Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reallege and 

incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

70. With regard to sentence one of Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, Defendants admit 

that Ross was employed by APFA as National President and provided services to APFA in that 

role. With regard to sentence two of Paragraph 70, Defendants admit that APFA is a party to a 

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

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

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

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

71. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 24 of 44 PageID 99
25

72. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint.

73. With regard to the allegation in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint, Defendants admit 

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

Agreement pursuant to their rights under the APFA Constitution, APFA Policy Manual and the 

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) Section 201(c) 29 U.S.C. § 

431(c) and aver that the Transition Agreement’s confidentiality clause is not enforceable under 

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

74. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint, and 

specifically deny that Hedrick, Harris and Chinery-Burns made false and disparaging comments 

about Ross and deny that Ross and his family suffered reputational and emotional damages. 

75. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, and 

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

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

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

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

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

overpayment as shown on Schedule C. 

76. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint. 

77. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint, and 

specifically deny that Defendants failed to pay Ross for all of his unused sick days under the 

Transition Agreement, deny that the calculation of this payout should have included MEA and 

SAF, and aver that the accounting firm found that the inclusion of MEA and SAF in the payout 

was in error and resulted in the $5,436.47 overpayment Ross owes. Defendants further deny that 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 25 of 44 PageID 100
26

APFA failed to pay Ross the costs and expenses he incurred and was entitled to for the 

arbitration proceedings. Defendants aver that APFA Constitution Article VII, Section 7.A 

provides: “Initial costs of the Article VII proceedings shall be borne by APFA in accordance 

with the provisions of Article V of this Constitution.” Defendants aver that APFA Policy 

Manual Section 17.O states: 

O. INITIAL COSTS OF PROCEEDINGS 

1. The Board of Directors interprets Article VII, Section 7.A. of the APFA 

Constitution to include the following costs and expenses: 

a. Reasonable and ordinary costs associated with administering the proceedings, 

i.e. telephone, postage, copying, etc.; 

b. The costs associated with obtaining the official transcript of the proceedings, 

c. The fees and expenses of the Article VII Arbitrator; 

d. The costs associated with providing the hearing room; and 

e. Trip removal costs and expenses associated with the attendance of 

the accused, his / her representative, the accuser and his / her 

representative. 

2. The payment of attorney fees and expenses, and expenses associated with the 

attendance of any witnesses, are specifically excluded. 

Defendants aver that APFA paid the reasonable and ordinary costs associated with administering 

the proceedings, i.e., telephone, postage, copying, etc.; the costs associated with obtaining the 

official transcript of the proceedings; the fees and expenses of the Article VII Arbitrator; the 

costs associated with providing the hearing room; and trip removal costs and expenses 

associated with the attendance of Ross and his representatives, and Chinery-Burns and Lee 

and their representatives. Defendants aver that the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order states, “Ross 

is hereby fined and Ordered to repay the APFA for all of the Arbitrator’s Fee for this 

arbitration,” aver that the arbitrator’s fee totaled $10,452, and aver that APFA demanded that 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 26 of 44 PageID 101
27

Ross pay $10,452 but that Ross has failed to pay this or any other amount he owes to APFA. 

Defendants further deny that APFA failed to pay Ross for reimbursable expenses and deny that 

APFA owes Ross $45,037.40 or any other amount. 

CLAIM: FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT VIOLATION 

78. With regard to Paragraph 78 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reallege and 

incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

79. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. 

80. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Complaint. 

CLAIM: INTENTONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 

81. With regard to Paragraph 81 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reallege and 

incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

82. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the Complaint, and 

specifically deny that Hedrick and Harris made any misrepresentations to the Arbitrator, the 

APFA Board of Directors and APFA Executive Committee. Defendants aver that Hedrick did 

not testify in the arbitration and had no communications with the Arbitrator. 

83. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 83 of the Complaint, and 

specifically deny that Defendants concealed the Confidential Memorandum and deny that there 

were any factual inaccuracies in the APFA Board of Directors’ finding that Ross owes the 

$5,436.47 overpayment. 

84. With regard to the allegations in sentences one and two in Paragraph 84 of the 

Complaint, Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to form a belief about the truth of these 

allegations and therefore deny the allegations. With regard to sentence three of Paragraph 84, 

Defendants deny that Ross’s wife works as a flight attendant for American Airlines and aver that 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 27 of 44 PageID 102
28

Ross’s wife’s name does not appear on the American Airlines Flight Attendant System Seniority 

List. With regard to the remaining allegations in sentence three, Defendants lack sufficient 

knowledge to form a belief about the truth of these allegations and therefore deny the allegations. 

Defendants deny the allegations in sentence four of Paragraph 84. 

CLAIM: DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH A CONTRACT, 

AND BREACH OF FIDCUCIARY DUTY 

85. With regard to Paragraph 85 of the Complaint, Defendants repeat, reallege and 

incorporate herein by reference their answers to all preceding paragraphs. 

86. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 86 of the Complaint, and 

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

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

87. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Complaint, and 

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

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

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

deny that Defendants interfered with said payment. 

88. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 88 of the Complaint, and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 28 of 44 PageID 103
29

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

that Ross should be found liable for his breach of federal and Texas common law fiduciary duty. 

89. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 89 of the Complaint. 

With regard to Paragraph 1-5 of the Complaint, which is the Prayer for Relief, 

Defendants deny that Ross is entitled to any of the relief he seeks in the Complaint, or to any 

relief, and specifically deny that Ross is entitled to injunctive relief on any basis; specifically 

deny that the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order dated March 19, 2022 should be vacated, set aside, 

or declared null and void; specifically deny that Ross is entitled to recover a judgment for 

monetary damages for $1,800,000 or any amount; specifically deny that Ross is entitled to 

recover attorney’s fees and/or costs; and specifically deny that Ross is entitled to any other, 

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

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

denied above is hereby denied. 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

1. Ross’s Motion to relitigate and then to vacate the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order 

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

United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597-99 (1960); 

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

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

2. Ross’s attempt to vacate the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order fails because it 

violates the well-settled federal principle of judicial deference to internal union proceedings. 

Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U.S. 330, 338 (1953); Carr v. ALPA, 866 F.3d 597, 602-03 and 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 29 of 44 PageID 104
30

n.16 (5th Cir. 2017); O'Neill v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, 939 F.2d 1199, 1206 (5th Cir. 1991); Newell 

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

3. Ross’s claim of violation of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act 

(“LMRDA”) Section 101(a)(5) fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted because that 

statutory provision applies to internal union disciplinary proceedings not to enforcement of 

arbitration awards. Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 6, 493 U.S. 67, 92-94 (1989); 

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

4. Ross’s claim of breach of the APFA Constitution fails to state a claim for which 

relief can be granted including because Ross has failed to exhaust the mandatory internal union 

remedies “prior to taking any legal action,” as required by Article VII, Section 8 of the APFA 

Constitution. Clayton v. International Union, 451 U.S. 679, 692 (1981); Hayes v. Brotherhood of 

Ry. & Airline Clerks, 727 F.2d 1383, 1385-86 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 469 U.S. 953 (1984). 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 30 of 44 PageID 105
31

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

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

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

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

693-94 (5th Cir. 1971). 

WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint in its entirety, Defendants pray 

that the relief requested be denied and that the Complaint be dismissed, and that Defendants may 

have their costs herein, reasonable attorney’s fees incurred, and such other and further relief to 

which they may be entitled. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 31 of 44 PageID 106
32

COUNTERCLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 

ENFORCING THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION AND ORDER INTERPRETING 

AND APPLYING THE APFA CONSTITUTION AND ORDERING ROSS TO COMPLY 

WITH THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION AND ORDER IN ALL RESPECTS 

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Association of Professional Flight Attendants 

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

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

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

APFA declaratory and injunctive relief enforcing the March 19, 2022 decision and order of 

Arbitrator Ruben Armendariz (“Arbitrator’s Decision and Order”) interpreting and applying the 

APFA Constitution and Policy Manual and which Decision and Order was issued pursuant to and 

in accordance with Article VII of the APFA Constitution and by which the Arbitrator ordered, 

inter alia, that certain APFA monies wrongfully paid to a former officer of APFA be repaid by 

him to APFA . In addition, this suit is brought pursuant to the Labor Management Reporting and 

Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) and Texas common law to recover the amount of those APFA funds 

wrongfully paid to that former APFA officer as identified in the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order 

which he was paid and is now failing and refusing to repay to APFA, all in breach of his 

fiduciary duties to the APFA and its members. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 32 of 44 PageID 107
33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APFA business. 

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

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

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

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

Constitution and Policy Manual. 

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 33 of 44 PageID 108
34

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

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

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

and refusing to repay to APFA. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

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

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

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

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

regulating commerce); and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory judgments). This Court has 

supplemental jurisdiction over Ross’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Venue is proper 

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

PARTIES 

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

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

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

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

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

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

President of APFA. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 34 of 44 PageID 109
35

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

THE APFA CONSTITUTION AND THE PROCESSING OF INTERNAL UNION 

CHARGES CLAIMING VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OR THE APFA 

POLICY MANUAL THROUGH TO DECISION BY AN ARBITRATOR 

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

herein. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

elected by the local Base Presidents. 

7. Article VII of the APFA Constitution establishes the internal disciplinary 

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

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 35 of 44 PageID 110
36

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

of Directors or Executive Committee. 

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

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

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

violated. 

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

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

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

Executive Committee. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 36 of 44 PageID 111
37

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

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

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

involvement with the APFA. 

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

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

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

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

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

dismissed without the need for hearing. 

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

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

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

them to provide sufficient specificity. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII Arbitrator may grant summary dismissal of the charges. 

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 37 of 44 PageID 112
38

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

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

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

conduct. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 38 of 44 PageID 113
39

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

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

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

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

and became aware of the offenses alleged in the charges. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

parties to the charges subpoenaed documents and witness testimony. 

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

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

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

this Court. 

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 39 of 44 PageID 114
40

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

testimony was inconsistent and not forthright.” Id.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrator’s fee. 

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

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

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

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

Order at 23. 

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

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

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

comply with the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 40 of 44 PageID 115
41

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 

 ENFORCEMENT OF THE APFA CONSTITUTION AS INTERPRETED AND 

APPLIED BY THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION AND ORDER 

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

herein. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

violation of the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: 

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES UNDER THE LMRDA 

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

herein. 

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

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 41 of 44 PageID 116
42

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: 

BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES UNDER TEXAS COMMON LAW 

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

herein. 

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

APFA under Texas common law. In paying and accepting payment of monies from APFA while 

President which the Arbitrator has found in his Decision and Order issued pursuant to Article VII 

of the APFA Constitution were overpayments and/or wrongful payments of APFA funds to Ross 

in violation of the APFA Constitution and Policy Manual and in refusing to repay those 

wrongfully paid funds to APFA, Ross has breached his fiduciary duty owed to APFA under 

Texas common law. Woodhaven Partners, Ltd. v. Shamoun & Norman, L.L.P., 422 S.W.3d 821 

(Tex.App.-Dallas 2014). 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 42 of 44 PageID 117
43

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff APFA 

(“APFA”) prays that this Counterclaim be brought on for hearing, and that upon full hearing the 

Court enter an Order: 

1. Granting Judgment in favor of APFA finding and declaring that the APFA is 

entitled to enforcement of the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order against Plaintiff Counterclaim 

Defendant Ross (“Ross”); 

2. Granting APFA injunctive relief ordering Ross to abide by, and to comply with 

the Arbitrator’s Decision and Order in all respects; 

3. Granting judgment in favor of APFA that Ross has violated his fiduciary duties as 

an officer of APFA in violation of §501(a) of the LMRDA and Texas common law; 

4. Granting APFA reasonable attorney’s fees, costs of action, and other expenses of 

litigation in this proceeding; and 

5. Granting APFA such other and further relief to which it may be entitled. 

Date: May 16, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Sanford R. Denison 

SANFORD R. DENISON 

Tex. Bar No. 05655560 

Baab & Denison, LLP 

6301 Gaston Ave., Suite 550 

Dallas, TX 75214 

Tel.: (214) 637-0750 

Fax.: (214) 637-0730 

Email: denison@baabdenison.com 

MARGOT A. NIKITAS* 

Illinois Bar No. 6309782 

General Counsel 

Association of Professional 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 43 of 44 PageID 118
44

Flight Attendants 

1004 W. Euless Boulevard 

Euless, TX 76040 

Tele. (817) 540-0108 ext. 8108 

Fax. (817) 355-1919 

Email: MNikitas@apfa.org

WILLIAM W. OSBORNE* 

D.C. Bar No. 912089 

Osborne Law Offices P.C. 

5335 Wisconsin Avenue N.W., Suite 440 

Washington, D.C. 20015 

Tel.: (202) 243-3200 

Fax: (202) 686-2977 

Email: b.osborne@osbornelaw.com 

Counsel for Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and 

Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris 

*Application of Admission Pro Hac Vice

Forthcoming 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 16th day of May 2022 a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was served on the below listed counsel of record for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant 

Ross by a means permitted by Rule 5(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”). 

KERRI PHILLIPS 

K.D. Phillips Law Firm, PLLC 

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300 

Plano, Texas 75024 

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com 

Date: May 16, 2022 /s/ Sanford R. Denison

SANFORD R. DENISON 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 8 Filed 05/16/22 Page 44 of 44 PageID 119