1 Exhibit 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FT. WORTH DIVISION

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS 

Plaintiff,

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ Case No. 4:22-CV-00343

V.

§

§ 

§

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, 

MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND 

ASSOCIATES, INC., JULIE 

HEDRICK,ERIK HARRIS, LARRY 

SALAS, JOSH BLACK, IMA 

FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.

Defendant.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

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

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

I.

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. §412, Breach of Union 

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 27 PageID 1967
2 Exhibit 1

of fiduciary duty, intentional interference with a contract, defamation, and intentional infliction of 

emotional distress. 

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

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

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

flight attendants among others—and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants on the other 

side—a labor union that exclusively represents American Airlines flight attendants. The power 

struggle ensued between those that supported a merger of the two unions—AFA and APFA

(“AFA/APFA”)—and those in opposition to a merger between AFA and APFA. Supporters of the 

AFA/APFA merger have now infiltrated APFA to take over and achieve a merger of the two unions. 

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

is outspoken against a merger between AFA and APFA. Violations of APFA members’ rights have 

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

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

II.

PARTIES

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

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

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

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

CA 95762. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 27 PageID 1968
3 Exhibit 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§ 1692(a)(6). 

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

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

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

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

Blvd, Euless, Texas 76040.

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

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

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

94534.

7. Defendant, Erik Harris (“Harris”) is the National Treasurer of APFA and can be 

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

Euless, Texas 76040. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 3 of 27 PageID 1969
4 Exhibit 1

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

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

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

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

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

76040 or anywhere else he may be found. 

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

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

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

III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

- Fort Worth Division based on Federal Question, and Diversity between the Parties 

in this suit. 

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

court by virtue of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 (a)(1)(A) and 

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

Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. §411, 412, and Breach of a 

Union Constitution 301 Labor-Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) 29 U.S.C. § 

185. 

13. Plaintiff is a California Citizen. Defendants all work in and or reside in Texas for 

51% of the year. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 4 of 27 PageID 1970
5 Exhibit 1

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

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

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

IV.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

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

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

V.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

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

Association of Professional Flight Attendants’ Union. 

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

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

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

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

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

victimizing Plaintiff, and others that opposed such a merger. 

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

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

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

these Board members would be the next target led many to support Ross’s resignation. 

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

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

of 2021. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 5 of 27 PageID 1971
6 Exhibit 1

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

conditions: 

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

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

by 365. 

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

days provided for under APFA policy; 

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

provided for under the APFA policy; 

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

have received otherwise had he remained in office;

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

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

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

Confidentiality clause; and

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

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

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

hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes and marked as Exhibit 1A (See Transition Agreement, 

Ex. 1A). 

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

(“Lee”) launched an investigation into the Ross Administration—Ross as National President, Nena 

Martin as National Vice-President, Eugenio Vargas as National Treasurer and Marcy Dunaway as 

National Secretary (“Ross Administration”) Chinery-Burns and Lee began to scour all financial 

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

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

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

filed additional charges against the Ross Administration. Again, the APFA elected National officials 

could either fight the charges in arbitration or retire their career from American Airlines as flight 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 6 of 27 PageID 1972
7 Exhibit 1

attendants—a bold and blatant attempt to take over key APFA leadership positions, which worked 

when Marcie Dunaway retired from the union to take other employment. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

alleged debt Ross owed for $5,436.37. 

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

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

Overpayment-of-Wages Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1B. The following alleged factual 

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

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

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

Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, Ex. 1B). 

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

accounting firm (See Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, Ex. 1B).

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

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

(See Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, Ex. 1B).

Every single factual assertion outlined above is false. 

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

Letter marked as A, B and C (See Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, Ex. 1B). (“Schedules”). The 

attached Schedules outline the following:

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

equal to annual salary divided by 365; 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 7 of 27 PageID 1973
8 Exhibit 1

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

Sick Days in accordance with the Transition Agreement; and 

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

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

his unused Vacation Days (See Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, Ex. 1B.) 

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

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

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

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

in an alleged overpayment of $5,436.37. This letter fails to explain why no offset is given for his 

additional unpaid Sick Days or any justification for changing the per diem rate. 

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

an audit or a formal review by an independent accounting firm (See Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, 

Ex. 1B). Ross was never given any independent accounting firm’s name or information to verify 

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

the full report in the conversation Ross and Harris had, as referenced in this letter. By the middle of 

February 2021, he discovered the debt had been sold to Diversified Credit System (“Diversified”), 

after which Diversified filed suit against Ross to collect the debt. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

arbitration. Upon review of the petition, Ross discovered that the Harris and Hedrick had concealed 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 8 of 27 PageID 1974
9 Exhibit 1

documents during his Arbitration. Upon recent notice, Ross discovered that Harris sent the 

Confidential Memo to all APFA National Officers, Julie Hedrick, Erik Harris, Larry Salas, and Josh 

Black (“National Officers”) on October 22, 2020. The current APFA Administration withheld 

documents prior to and during the APFA Article VII Arbitration that would have exonerated Ross. 

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

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

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

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

Transition Agreement attached hereto and marked as Exhibit 1C. (See Confidential Memo, Ex. 1C.) 

The Confidential Memo from the APFA Accounting Firm outlines the following pertinent facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

according to APFA Policy. 

iii. The most important aspect of the letter states “Please note the Bob Ross 

confidential transition agreement states that he will be paid all of his 

accrued and unused sick and accrued and unused vacation time. This 

agreement doesn’t [sic] specify that the payments be made in accordance 

with the policy manual guidelines. Consequently, these payments appear 

appropriate and in compliance with the transition agreement.”

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

these funds.” (See Confidential Memo, Ex. 1C.)

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 9 of 27 PageID 1975
10 Exhibit 1

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

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

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

Memo, Ex. 1C.)

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

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

language of the VOD letter. (See Overpayment-of-Wages Letter, Ex. 1B).

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

of payments made to Ross to acquire seemingly valid documents that the union officers could 

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

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

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

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

letter and used only the Schedules, cited the accounting firm’s “review” as though it were an audit. 

These officers misrepresented that the accounting firm found that Ross was overpaid. As a direct 

result of these misrepresentations the APFA National Officers acted in breach of their fiduciary duty, 

disparaged, harassed, and charged Ross under the APFA Article VII Constitution to pursue unfounded

damages. The APFA National Officers submitted the Schedules to the APFA BOD, and the APFA 

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

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 10 of 27 PageID 1976
11 Exhibit 1

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

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

Ross and fine him $52,340.79. (See Martin Aff., Ex. 1D). Attached hereto and incorporated herein is 

the affidavit of Nena Martin marked as Exhibit 1D. Nena Martin (“Martin”), an APFA Board member 

during 2011 and 2021, was present at both the APFA BOD meeting on October 27 and 28 of 2020, 

which addressed many of the issues related to Ross’s charges, and present at the APFA EC meeting 

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

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

miscalculated based on these Schedules. (See Martin Aff., Ex. 1D). Moreover, the APFA BOD

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

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

Confidential Memo from the accounting firm, nor did the APFA BOD ever find that Ross was 

overpaid. No formal vote was ever held, and no formal action by the APFA BOD was ever taken as 

far as the record shows. 

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

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

nor its contents were ever presented or disclosed to the EC prior to voting. (See Ex. 1D, Martin Aff.). 

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

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

result of a formal review and found Ross had been overpaid. (See Martin Aff., Ex. 1D,). It can only 

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

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

leadership positions. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 11 of 27 PageID 1977
12 Exhibit 1

E. APFA BOD and the APFA EC held that the charges brought against Ross were valid 

and referred the case to APFA’s internal Arbitration Proceedings per the APFA’s

Constitution. 

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

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

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

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

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

Airlines while the charges are pending, then the charges are dismissed. It is clear to see how abuse of 

APFA’s Constitutional Article VII Disciplinary Procedures could thwart the democratic process.

Members launch APFA’s Constitutional Article VII Disciplinary Procedures to institute a culture of 

silence and obedience and eliminate vocal minority political factions. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 12 of 27 PageID 1978
13 Exhibit 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

documentation from the accounting firm cited in this letter.

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

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

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

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

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

APFA for this furniture. Speculation persisted about credit card receipts, and consideration of the 

union’s procedures for approval and coverage of these expenses were not addressed. Toilet paper and 

Starbucks coffee were the types of charges brought into question three to five years after the charges 

were incurred, authorized and approved. APFA Constitutional limits to bring charges are 60-day

from the time “after the accuser becomes aware, or reasonably should have become aware, of the 

alleged offense.” The procedure during 2016-2018 was to submit expenses to the APFA Treasurer

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 13 of 27 PageID 1979
14 Exhibit 1

who reviewed and approved expenses as valid. Attached hereto and incorporated herein is the 

affidavit of Eugenio Vargas—the National Treasurer under the Ross Administration—marked as 

Exhibit 1E. The National Treasurer during Ross’s administration was Eugenio Vargas, reviewed and 

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

illegal or illicit charges to the union. (See Vargus Aff. Ex. 1E).

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrator took over questioning the witness. The Arbitrator even allowed Harris to testify as an 

accountant. Harris did nothing to correct the record and clarify that he does not, in fact, hold any 

certification as a public accountant. Chinery-Burns was given more than eight hours over two days

to present her case to the Arbitrator; Ross had less than three hours to present his defense and 

witnesses—most ignored his subpoenas, and yet the Arbitrator made no effort to enforce these 

subpoenas or even require attendance during an arbitration hearing where Ross’s reputation, career, 

and property interests were at stake. 

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

the final Arbitration Award is attached hereto and incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit 1F 

(“Ross Arbitration Award”). The Arbitrator relied on evidence presented by Chinery-Burns and 

Lee that Ross was guilty of the APFA Constitution, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of 

funds, and fraud citing the same misrepresentations reflected in Harris’s Overpayment-of-Wages 

Letter: 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 14 of 27 PageID 1980
15 Exhibit 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defendant Ross is not accepting this responsibility” (See Ross Arbitration Award, March 

19, 2022, Ex. 1F, 21-24). 

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

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

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

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

over $52,340.79 in charges and fees by APFA for the cost of an unfair arbitration. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

of the charges brought against Ross, then proceeded to find him guilty of the APFA Constitution and 

Policy and rendered an arbitration award in favor of Chinery-Burns and Lee for at least $52,340.79. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ever being heard by the Executive Committee. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 15 of 27 PageID 1981
16 Exhibit 1

VI. 

CLAIM: LABOR MANAGEMENT REPORTING AND 

DISCLOSURE ACT VIOLATIONS

39. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

40. Plaintiff is a member in good standing of APFA. 

41. The organization fined, suspended and “otherwise disciplined” Plaintiff through 

its Article VII Arbitration. 

42. Defendants wrongfully disciplined Plaintiff for his political stance on the 

AFA/APFA merger. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 16 of 27 PageID 1982
17 Exhibit 1

Furthermore, restriction of documents and document discovery cannot be 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the terms of his Transition Agreement by Defendant, APFA. Also, it is a violation 

to issue an award without an adequate opportunity for Ross to present his case or 

to intimidate witnesses from testifying. The Plaintiff was disciplined through fines, 

removal from his position on the Board of Director, and barred from ever holding 

office with APFA again. 

VII.

CLAIM: BREACH OF UNION CONSITUTION

45. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

46. 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 bases, Plaintiff hereby updates his causes of action to 

properly assert a breach of duty of fair representation claim under 29 U.S.C. § 185. 

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

union fairly and honestly in relation to a collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiff 

has exhausted all remedies available under the APFA Constitution.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 17 of 27 PageID 1983
18 Exhibit 1

47. Defendants had a duty to effectuate the disciplinary proceedings in a fair and honest 

manner—to give the Plaintiff proper notice, and a fair hearing. The APFA Const. 

Art. II §3 (C)-(D) provides that all members shall have the right to individual 

privacy, due process, and equal representation. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rights to privacy by publicizing his private information to third parties, allowing 

these members to disparage him regarding debts that he allegedly owed to the union 

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

directors, and committee members about Plaintiff’s debt. These emails harassed 

him publicly over a debt in dispute. Further, social media posts to APFA 

membership were posted by various members as well as a hotline announcement 

that marred Plaintiff after the announcement of the arbitration award. He has 

endured humiliation and shame for conduct of which he was never guilty. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 18 of 27 PageID 1984
19 Exhibit 1

50. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process by concealing the Confidential Memo 

which exonerated Ross from the charges against him. The National Officers had a 

duty to disclose this information to Plaintiff and to the charging parties and failed 

to do so. 

51. 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. Defendants violated this duty by failing to testify after being 

subpoenaed and failing to produce all documentation in its possession. 

52. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s due process rights intentionally by concealing

evidence from the accounting firm and its formal opinion that Ross did not owe the 

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

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

collect monies and disparage Plaintiff. 

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

Article VII charges. 

54. In essence, the failure of Defendants to properly prosecute the Arbitration 

proceedings denied Plaintiff a full and fair hearing and violated the APFA 

Constitution. 

55. Plaintiff was therefore fined, removed from office, and barred from holding union 

leadership positions ever again. 

56. Defendants conduct was made in bad faith. 

57. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s privacy by disclosing Plaintiff’s private confidential 

information to members. The result is that these members posted this confidential 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 19 of 27 PageID 1985
20 Exhibit 1

information on social media sites and used it to defame and humiliate him. 

Defendants had a fiduciary duty protect Plaintiff’s private information and prevent 

any harm that may come to him as a result due to such a disclosure. 

VIII.

CLAIM: BREACH OF CONTRACT/EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT

58. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

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

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

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

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

Agreement”). 

60. Plaintiff provided these services as a National President for Defendant, 

and left office upon signing the Transition Agreement. 

61. Defendant accepted these services.

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

Transition Agreement when it revealed the terms of the Transition 

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

membership. 

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

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

to continually publish false and disparaging comments about Plaintiff, 

causing reputational and emotional damages to him and his family. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 20 of 27 PageID 1986
21 Exhibit 1

64. Defendant failed to pay the full amount due and owing under th e Transition 

Agreement as the calculations per the Confidential Memo provided to the 

APFA BOD clearly exhibits that APFA failed to pay him for all of his 

unused sick and vacation days. Furthermore, the opinion of APFA’s own 

accountant is that the calculation of the per diem rate and payments were 

accurate.

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

reputational harm suffered in violation of the nondisparagement clause under his 

Transition Agreement. 

66. Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all his unused Sick Days under the 

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

intended in the Transition Agreement, the costs and expenses he incurred for 

arbitration proceedings, his reimbursable expenses APFA failed to pay him the 

full amount to which he is entitled. 

67. Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages including being fined, removed from 

office, and barred from holding union leadership positions ever again. 

68. Defendants conduct was made in bad faith. 

IX.

CLAIM: DEFAMATION, INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH A 

CONTRACT, AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

69. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

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

good standing within the union based on federal law and under the APFA 

Constitution.

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 21 of 27 PageID 1987
22 Exhibit 1

71. The National Officers, in-house and outside counsel, as well as the accounting firm 

conspired to create false documentation representing that Plaintiff owed a debt that 

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

disciplinary proceedings against Plaintiff unjustly. Defendants deliberately failed 

to disclose documentation, and misrepresented the facts to Plaintiff, to the APFA

BOD, and the APFA EC. Defendants owe a fiduciary duty and clearly breached it 

through conduct made in bad faith. 

72. Defendants further conspired to collect the debt simultaneously with Diversified 

Credit. Diversified asserts that the debt was assigned to it, however APFA 

continued to collect the debt at the same time as the original creditor. This is a 

breach of fiduciary duty as the union and its officers have no legal standing to 

collect a debt where all legal rights title or interest therein and have legally assigned 

their interests to a third party. 

73. The APFA National Officers’ fiduciary duty to Ross was breached when it began 

simultaneously collecting on debt without any legal claim to collect that debt. 

Furthermore, the damages were foreseeable as the APFA BOD discovered that the 

debt was reported on Plaintiff’s credit report, and that the debt was invalid. APFA, 

rather than rectify the situation, began to humiliate Ross through email exchanges 

with the APFA BOD. 

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

reputation, and remove him from his position within APFA leadership. The APFA 

National Officers had a duty to prevent credit reporting of an invalid debt and the 

consequences of a denial of Ross’s mortgage loan were foreseeable as they were 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 22 of 27 PageID 1988
23 Exhibit 1

told he was applying for a mortgage loan at the time. The conduct of the National 

Officers was unconscionable. 

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

Ross, a member of APFA in good standing. 

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

77. Defendants intentionally exposed Plaintiff’s Transition Agreement with the APFA 

membership without Plaintiff’s prior written authorization or approval. 

78. Consequently, Defendants caused substantial damages to Plaintiff including fines 

and actual damages and consequential damages. 

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

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

damages, injuring his reputation, and charging him. 

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

because of the union officers’ individual fraudulent conduct—this includes the 

Plaintiff’s conduct as well. Currently, Plaintiff has sought to include and pursue all 

claims against the Bonding Company to ensure protecting the union. 

81. Plaintiff has suffered substantial damages including being fined, removed from 

office, and barred from holding union leadership positions ever again. 

82. Defendants conduct was made in bad faith. 

X.

CLAIM: FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT VIOLATIONS

83. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 23 of 27 PageID 1989
24 Exhibit 1

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

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

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

purposes of abuse. 

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

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

reporting. The damages resulted from unauthorized negative credit reporting and 

collections of the wrong amount at a time when Ross was refinancing his home and 

applying for loans for his children’s college education. Consequently, he suffered 

extensive damages including the additional interest for the loans on his children’s 

college, the denial of his home loan, a value is over $500,000, and taking his 

children out of their college education do to the inability to finance their education 

because of the Arbitration Award and litigation. His family suffered extensively 

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

this hardship has now impacted his children’s future.

XI.

CLAIM: VIOLATIONS OF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT

86. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

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

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

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

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 24 of 27 PageID 1990
25 Exhibit 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, APFA, and its officers, breached their duty to of fair representation for 

furnishing this information to Diversified and causing unauthorized publication to 

his Credit Report in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

complaint and therefore, reporting information it should have known was 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 25 of 27 PageID 1991
26 Exhibit 1

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

associated costs and attorney’s fees. 

XII. 

CLAIM: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

89. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs above. 

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

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

the Confidential Memo and misrepresented to the Arbitrator, the BOD and EC that 

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

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

under the Transition Agreement. 

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

Memo and failing to correct the record when the facts reflected inaccuracies 

regarding the BOD findings. 

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

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

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

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

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

attendant for twenty-eight years. She has suffered extreme emotional distress, panic 

attacks resulting from damage to her reputation within her social circle, not to 

mention their children have come home from college due to the cost. All of these 

circumstances were created by Defendants. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 26 of 27 PageID 1992
27 Exhibit 1

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant hereby prays as follows: 

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

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

clause in Plaintiff’s Transition Agreement. 

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

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

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

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

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

be justly entitled to receive. 

Respectfully submitted,

K.D. PHILLIPS LAW FIRM, PLLC

By: /s/ Kerri Phillips 

Kerri Phillips

Texas Bar No. 24065906

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com

6010 W. Spring Creek Parkway

Plano, Texas 75024

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

For Service of Filings: 

notice@KDphillipslaw.com

 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 88-1 Filed 04/14/23 Page 27 of 27 PageID 1993