Accused woman drugger and sexual assaulter Michael Bjorkman, has sued Exp Realty and CEO Glenn Sanford for defamation and unpaid wages.

Bjorkman (right) filed his first Complaint against Exp Realty in Spokane County, Washington on April 12th. An Amended Complaint, adding CEO Glenn Sanford, was filed on April 19th.

As per Bjorkman’s Amended Complaint, he signed on as an Exp Realty agent in September 2018. Bjorkman (right) was terminated in September 2020, as a result of undisclosed “controversy”.

The “controversy” Bjorkman references pertains to alleged drugging and sexual assault of women dating back to 2000.

Bjorkman’s alleged conduct has since resulted in two separate pending lawsuits filed against him in California; one in March 2023 and another in December.

Bjorkman was also arrested on two counts of sexual assault pertaining to allegations made in the March 2023 lawsuit. Charges against Bjorkman however were dropped in May.

Exp Realty was recently dismissed as a Defendant in the December 2023 lawsuit but otherwise the outcome of both cases remains pending.

Bjorkman claims, after he was terminated, that he entered into a Settlement Agreement with Exp Realty.

The agreement required EXP to pay [Bjorkman’s] “revenue share” as defined by the Independent Contractor Agreement (“ICA”) on an accelerated basis.

The agreement states;

As of the Effective Date, EXP will accelerate the vesting of Agent’s Revenue Share, as defined in the ICA, as if the Agent had been an independent sales agent with EXP for three (3) years as of the ICA Termination Date.

If Agent affiliates with a competitor of EXP, Agent loses his ability to earn the eXponential share portion of his revenue share.

In addition, if any of the following are true, EXP will cease to pay Agent either the eXpansion share, eXponential share, or both:

  1. Agent is convicted of a crime;
  2. if Agent commits or attempts to commit or admits to committing acts of moral turpitude that are inconsistent with EXP’s core values; or
  3. Agent has engaged in legal action against EXP or acted in a manner that facilitates legal action against EXP.

Bjorkman claims Exp Realty began paying him in April 2021 but then stopped in March 2022.

Alleges Bjorkman;

After the March 23, 2022 payment, no other payments were made.

Defendant therefore, breached the agreement in failing to pay wages due and owing.

I can’t speak to Exp Realty’s “core values” but, allegedly upon being informed of Bjorkman’s alleged drugging and sexual assault of female Exp Realty agents, CEO Glenn Sanford reportedly told a Board Member it “was not their problem”.

Even if Exp Realty is fine with its top Agents drugging and sexually assaulting women, Bjorkman’s alleged conduct has resulted in Exp Realty being named as a defendant in the two California lawsuits.

Thus as far as I can see, in light of his alleged conduct, Bjorkman should have never been paid following his termination. Bjorkman evidently sees otherwise and claims Exp Realty ceasing his post-termination payments as “unlawful”.

Pertaining to his post-termination payments, Bjorkman has gone after Exp Realty and Sanford for:

  • failure to pay wages owed;
  • willful refusal to pay wages;
  • breach of contract;
  • unjust enrichment; and
  • breach of good faith and fair dealing

Bjorkman also accuses of Sanford of defamation.

On November 2, 2023, Exp Realty, LLC held its “eXp World Holding Q3 2023 Results” call with investors.

During that call, the civil lawsuits against Mr. Bjorkman, Exp Realty and Glenn Sanford came up.

The question and response were as follows:

[Editor’s note: there is nothing in the filing depicting the referenced “question and response” above]

Based on information and belief, Plaintiff believes that one of the two “bad actors” referenced in the statement refers to him.

As I understand it, Sanford fielded a question on the two alleged drugging and sexual assault lawsuits, prompting him to indirectly refer to Bjorkman and alleged co-conspirator David Golden as “bad actors”.

Specific statements attributed to Sanford later in Bjorkman’s suit include:

  • “We believe we had two actors, two bad actors.”
  • “and that they had acted significantly inappropriately, to the point where, you know, there likely could have and, who knows, may still be jail time associated with it.”
  • “find credible evidence that says people are doing things that are doing things [sic] that are on the wrong side of the law, then we do release agents.”

Bjorkman maintains he has been falsely accused.

By calling Bjorkman a “bad actor” who engaged in conduct that could result in “jail time”, and referencing the lawsuit, Mr. Sanford essentially told all of the investors on the call that Mr. Bjorkman committed those acts.

He also stated that he has “credible evidence” that Mr. Bjorkman engaged in such terrible acts.

However, these statements are false and Mr. Sanford knew or should have known that they are false.

To start, he openly admits that they “still … don’t even know what the story might be.”

Further, the “dispute” referenced in paragraph 6-8 were the criminal allegations that were initially leveraged against Mr. Bjorkman, which were dismissed as the prosecutor decline to charge Mr. Bjorkman.

Bjorkman goes on to point out that, despite the allegations against him, Exp Realty

signed him onto the compensation acceleration agreement that is part of the contract dispute.

It was only after public pressure mounted against Exp Realty that they stopped paying Mr. Bjorkman and did so only as a public relations and marketing move, knowing there is insufficient evidence supporting the claims int he underlying civil matter.

Mr. Sanford essentially called Mr. Bjorkman a sex trafficker and rapist on a publicly posted earnings call.

Here Bjorkman’s lawsuit cites an online stream of Exp Realty’s investor call, posted to the company’s official YouTube channel on November 3rd, 2023.

Bjorkman alleges Sanford claiming to have “credible evidence” of him “engag[ing] in sex trafficking and rape” is “defamation per se.”

As a result of being called a sex trafficker and a rapist in front his entire former company and national investors, and then posted online for all to see, Mr. Bjorkman has suffered significant and noneconomic damages.

In his prayer for relief, Bjorkman seeks:

  • a monetary award of double damages;
  • economic damages pertaining to Sanford’s alleged defamatory statement;
  • no less than $20 million in general damages;
  • pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
  • legal costs

Stay tuned for updates as BehindMLM continues to track the case.