Case Explained: CLAYTON W. CREASON v. ELANCO US INC

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-29 The seventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Clayton Creason’s claims under the Indiana Wage Payment Statute and his request for class certification. The court held that Elanco US Inc.’s “vacation buy” program did not constitute an illegal assignment of wages requiring a written rescission notice, as the arrangement involved a voluntary salary reduction in exchange for additional paid leave rather than a deduction from earned wages or a transfer of funds to a third party. Furthermore, the court ruled that Indiana law does not mandate payment for unused vacation time at the end of employment unless the employer has explicitly promised to do so; because Elanco’s policy required the use of pandemic-era rollover hours before termination and did not promise cash payout for unused time, no compensation was owed. Regarding jurisdiction, the court addressed whether the case should have been remanded to state court under the Class Action Fairness Act’s “local controversy” exception (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)), which generally requires federal courts to decline jurisdiction when more than two-thirds of proposed class members are citizens of the state where the action was filed and the principal defendant is a citizen of that state. Although the court acknowledged that Creason’s putative class likely met these criteria, it held that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the motion to remand because Creason failed to raise the issue for 171 days after receiving evidence supporting it, despite litigation having already progressed significantly. The court noted that while there is no strict 30-day deadline for seeking remand under § 1453, a “reasonable time” standard applies, and Creason’s delay was unreasonable given the substantial steps taken in federal court. On the procedural issue of class certification, the court observed that the district judge incorrectly dismissed the motion as moot after ruling against the plaintiff on the merits; under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a class action is not moot simply because the class loses. However, the appellate court declined to order remand for certification, reasoning that Creason would be an inadequate representative for a class given his request to certify a class only after losing on the merits and seeking to take other workers “down in flames” with him. The practical consequence is that the judgment dismissing the individual claims stands, and no class action proceeds against Elanco on these grounds. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.