Keller
Williams
was
named
to
an
additional
class-action
lawsuit
this
week
that
takes
issue
with
alterations
made
to
the
brokerage’s
profit-sharing
program. 

In
the
past
few
weeks,
11

agents
formerly
affiliated
with

Keller
Williams
—
Jerri
Moulder,
David
Bueker,
Robert
Hill,
Kevin
Ortiz,
Edward
Fordyce,
Paul
Davis,
Penny
Alper,
Jana
and
Dennis
Caudill,
Eric
Mendoza
and
Jack
Levine —
took

legal
action
against
the
real
estate

brokerage
by
filing
seven
separate
class-action
lawsuits.

On
Monday,
John
Exnicios
filed
a
complaint
aiming
for
class-action
status
in
the

U.S.
District
Court
for
the
Eastern
District
of
Louisiana.
Exnicios
was
a
sales
associate
with
Keller
Williams
from
May
2014
to
June
2021.

In

February
2020,
KW
introduced
a
more
restrictive
policy
to
its
profit-sharing
program.
It
stated
that
associates
who
joined
the
brokerage
on
or
after
April
1,
2020,
and
subsequently
jumped
to
a
competitor
would
lose
their
revenues
from
the
company’s
lifelong
revenue
program.
But
that
policy
did
not
impact
agents
who
joined
before
April
1,
2020. 

The
change
introduced
in
2020
also
extended
the
wait
period
to
become
a
vested
member.
But
in

August
2023,
during
KW’s
Mega
Agent
Camp
event
in
Austin,
the
company’s
International
Associate
Leadership
Council
(IALC)
voted
to
revise
the
profit-sharing
distribution
policy.
Under
the
updated
policy,
vested
agents
who
joined
before
April
1,
2020,
and
actively
compete
with
KW
brokerages
would
see
their
profit
share
reduced
from
100%
to
5%.

An
incentive
to
go
back
to
Keller
Williams
remained.
Former
agents
who
return
to
the
company
within
six
months
of
the
effective
reduction
date
will
have
their
profit
share
restored
to
100%,
now-former
KW
President
Marc
King
wrote
in
an
email
in
August
2023.
Also,
former
KW
agents
who
have
retired
or
left
the
industry
altogether
will
retain
their
full
profit-share
distribution.
The
new
policy
is
supposed
to
be
implemented
on
or
before
July
1,
2024.

The
plaintiffs
argue
that
according
to
the
Keller
Williams
policies
and
guidelines
manual,
the
brokerage
did
not
have
the
right
to
terminate
the
profit-share
program.
They
also
claim
it
didn’t
have
the
right
to
amend
any
aspect
of
the
program’s
method
of
calculating
a
market
center’s
profit-sharing
contribution
or
a
recruiting
sponsor’s
profit-sharing
distribution,
except
as
specifically
directed
by
the
IALC.
Lastly,
they
claim
that
any
amendment
made
to
the
profit-sharing
program
was
only
allowed
to
be
prospective
and
not
retroactive. 

Related