No, it is not broken.
This is NOT A PROBLEM for PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA1.
The PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA1 function is a key derivation function (password-based key derivation). It is fairly good function, for instance it is recommended by NIST (NIST SP 800-132). It is (relatively) rare for this function to have a collision, but collisions generally are not a problem for key derivation functions (in their proper use).
Instead, collisions are a problem for applications like digital signatures if they are found in the underlying SHA-1 hash function. SHA-1 hash is already considered weak for digital signature etc. and some parties, most notably NIST, are no longer recommending its use for applications where collisions are a problem.
This is just a trick:
eBkXQTfuBqp'cTcar&g* is hash of
plnlrtfpijpuhqylxbgqiiyipieyxvfsavzgxbbcfusqkozwpngsyejqlmjsytrmd. Given a little time, it is easy to find such pairs. This is related to how HMAC works: large arguments are hashed before use.
HMAC-SHA-1 is expected to protect your password less than what you'd expect from 160-bit crypto. If you password is significantly larger than that, good chances are that there are shorter printable passwords which are equivalent.
What happens now?
For PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA1, nothing. For HMAC, nothing. For SHA-1, nothing. Almost nothing happens.
All the users using password
plnlrtfpijpuhqylxbgqiiyipieyxvfsavzgxbbcfusqkozwpngsyejqlmjsytrmd could start using shorter password
eBkXQTfuBqp'cTcar&g*, and the other way around. But, in fact, any passwords that get any kind of publicity (including e.g. that password is the most common or least common $n$ letter password) are recommended to be not used anymore. So thereafter, it is good idea to avoid both of the above passwords (just like there was previously reason to avoid