Kara A. Pullman

Kara's practice is devoted to the defense of employers in employment-related claims involving allegations of discrimination based upon age, gender, race, sexual orientation and disability, as well as retaliation and 'whistle blowing.' Kara is experienced in the areas of municipal liability and civil rights and has represented municipal and county governments including police departments, police officers, and school boards in cases relating to civil rights and discrimination based upon race, gender, and age discrimination and lawsuits filed under the IDEA and CEPA in both the federal and state courts. Kara also has experience handling special education matters for school districts, including administrative and due process hearings involving IDEA claims.

In 1994 Kara graduated from St. Joseph's University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in International Relations. After receiving her undergraduate degree, Kara worked as admissions and program coordinator for the Harvard Business School Executive Education Program. She subsequently went on to receive her juris doctor from the Rutgers School of Law - Camden in 2002. While attending Rutgers, Kara was the Associate New Developments editor for the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion.

Kara served as a law clerk to The Honorable William J. Cook, J.S.C., Camden County.

Kara is admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and the U.S. District Court of New Jersey. She is a member of the Camden County Bar Association.

Year joined

2003

Results

New Jersey LAD Protection Does Not Apply to Plaintiff's EPL Claim

Employment Law
May 11, 2017

Obtained summary judgment in an EPL matter where the plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant company, claimed that she was terminated because of her age in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 105-12. The defendant company had an office in New Jersey, but the plaintiff worked out of her home in Massachusetts. According to the defendant, in the seven years prior to her termination, she had not traveled to New Jersey for any work-related reason.

Plaintiffs Unable to Pursue LAD Claims

Employment Law
April 21, 2016

Obtained summary judgment in a matter in Camden County, New Jersey. The three plaintiffs, who were formerly employed by the defendant company as painters and/or painter’s helpers and were members of a union, argued that they were laid off and not rehired due to their age, a violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-12. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. Section 185(a) (LMRA) and the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A.

Thought Leadership

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2024 Shareholder Class And Special Counsel Promotions

December 19, 2023
Marshall Dennehey is pleased to announce that 10 attorneys have been elected shareholders of the firm effective January 1, 2024. Additionally, three attorneys have been promoted from associate to special counsel.

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2021 Shareholder Class and Special Counsel Promotion

January 4, 2021
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin is pleased to announce that eight associates and five special counsel have been elevated to shareholder, effective January 1, 2021.

New Jersey Supreme Court holds that public entities cannot limit liability through waivers in the same way as private entities.

Public Entity & Civil Rights Litigation
January 1, 2011
The plaintiff, a security officer who was required to complete a state-approved police training course as a condition of his employment, slipped and fell on a wet substance on the stairs while doing mandatory duty as 'lunch recruit.' He Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011

Public entity may be liable for use of excessive force even though plaintiff suffered no physical injury.

Public Entity & Civil Rights Litigation
January 1, 2011
The plaintiff alleged that two police officers violated his civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. A jury returned a verdict that found that the officers did, in fact, violate his civil rights but did not cause injury to the plaintiff. Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011

Appeals court throws out $1.2 million whistleblower verdict and a $523,000 fee award, and applying LAD precedent, rules that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages because he was not terminated or constructively discharged.

Public Entity & Civil Rights Litigation
April 1, 2010
A Salem County jury found in favor of the plaintiff, a chemical engineer at duPont Chambers Works factory. Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2010