Holly R. Lake

Lake is a partner in DLA Piper’s employment practice, where she represents both private and public employers in cases involving harassment, discrimination, wrongful discharge and wage and hour matters. Her clients include G6 Hospitality LLC, which includes the brands Motel 6 and Studio 6, and the California Institute of Technology and its Jet Propulsion Laboratory division, which it operates for NASA.

She said the pandemic office closures appear to be winding down. “We had a soft re-open this week,” she said in early June. “I heard that two people came in. Our real reopening is set for September, though it feels like we’re flipping the switch pretty quick.

“My opinion is that lawyers and administrators like working from home, and many firms are recognizing this. If that’s the case, firms may not need as much real estate as they explore the hoteling concept,” in which attorneys share an office by working on different days of the week.

Lake predicts that conflict will arise over return-to-work plans in many industries. “There’ll be a ton of litigation regarding claims of disability discrimination and leave of absences. People in the workforce are going to request not to work in the office, and employers may or may not accommodate them.”

She said that last year’s presidential campaign led to political tensions in the workplace that required employment lawyers to step in. “We did some training sessions. You have to let people express their views without bullying.”

Now, political strife may be replaced by issues over coronavirus safety. “I think people will hassle over their suspicions regarding vaccination status. It’ll be another source of disruption, and again, we’ll come in with training.”

Last year Lake prevailed for Caltech before a state appellate panel in defending the summary judgment she had obtained on a worker’s discrimination and retaliation claims. Short v. California Institute of Technology, B291603 (2d DCA, op. filed. June 26, 2020).

Plaintiff Janester Short alleged that her lateral rotation to another department at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory was a demotion; Lake argued that it was not an adverse employment action. Lake’s challenge was to distinguish the circumstances of the case from a 2005 precedent, Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist., which held that such lateral transfers can be adverse actions even if the wages, benefits and job duties remain the same.

“Even though Ms. Short believed the new post was less prestigious,” Lake said, “we showed there was no evidence that any of her career opportunities had been diminished or changed in any way.”

The appellate panel agreed, although Lake said that the oral argument session, held in the early days of the pandemic while even audio technology was rudimentary, was difficult. “There was bad echo and everyone’s voices reverberated. You couldn’t see faces, of course, to read the justices’ expressions. It was very distracting. Still, it was a nice win. And the plaintiff even kept her job.”

— John Roemer