J. MIRA HASHMALL
By Nicolas Sonnenburg, The Daily Journal – July 10, 2019 – Earlier this year, Hashmall urged the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to apply 11th Amendment immunity to Los Angeles County, a unique theory that would extend a legal protection reserved for states to a local government.
“It’s a very challenging, interesting matter,” Hashmall said in a recent interview, describing the appeal. “The question it presents is: should the county have to answer and potentially be liable for decisions that are made by the state?”
Defending the county against federal Fair Labor Standards Act claims brought by home care providers who work in the California’s In-Home Support Services Program, Hashmall has argued it’s not right to allow the state to escape responsibility for actions it’s taken, while letting the fall go to the county, which helped implement the program. Ray v. County of Los Angeles, 17-56581 (9th Cir., filed June 7, 2017).
That’s the complicated sort of work Hashmall is used to doing.
“The case draws upon both areas of my expertise,” she said. “I’m a certified appellate specialist in addition to being well versed in labor law.”
The range of cases Hashmall takes is wide, ranging from harassment to wage and hour and wrongful termination.
She’s currently representing world renowned Bulgarian heavyweight boxer Kubrat Pulev in proceedings before the California State Athletic Commission for kissing a television reporter after an interview as well as Los Angeles County in a case challenging Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s controversial and well-publicized decision to reinstate a former deputy who was charged with misconduct. County of Los Angeles v. Alex Villanueva, 19STCP00630 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed March 4, 2019).
Hashmall’s work has also brought her to the U.S. Supreme Court, where she and a team of Miller Barondess attorneys are working with UC Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky to argue a testing of the standard of causation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits contractual discrimination against black citizens. Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, 16-56479.
“We think the law is clear that the motivating factor standard is consistent with the language of Section 1981,” Hashmall said.
