WILLIAM S. BARNETT VS. COMMISSIONERS OF FIRE DISTRICTÂ NO. 1 IN HARRISON TOWNSHIP(L-1374-13, GLOUCESTER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0523-15T2

William Barnett, a paid part-time firefighter for Harrison Township Fire District (HFD), pled guilty to DWI in May 2013 and lost his driver's license for 90 days; HFD requires a valid license to perform duties.
HFD initiated disciplinary proceedings: an initial hearing (May 31, 2013) resulted in a recommendation of suspension for the license-suspension period; a later charge of "conduct unbecoming" led to a second hearing (July 17, 2013) and a recommendation of removal, adopted by the Board.
Barnett filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writs seeking reinstatement and damages, including a claim under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA).
The Law Division previously held Barnett was entitled to notice and a hearing on discipline tied to violation of internal rules, but concluded he was an at-will employee and thus not entitled to statutory tenure protections under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-19. An appellate panel dismissed an earlier appeal as moot after Barnett received hearings.
On remand, HFD moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss non-CEPA counts; the trial judge granted the motion, dismissing two counts. Barnett appealed that dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether N.J.S.A. 40A:14-19's removal/hearing protections for "paid or part-paid fire department or force" apply to fire districts as well as municipal departments	Barnett: the statute's language and legislative history encompass both municipal fire departments and fire districts; prior App. Div. precedent supports this	HFD: the statute's text was meant to apply only to municipal departments; omission of "fire district" shows legislative intent to exclude districts	Court: N.J.S.A. 40A:14-19 applies to both municipal departments and fire districts; read in pari materia with later statutes (e.g., 40A:14-28.1) shows legislative intent to include fire districts
Whether the trial judge correctly granted summary judgment dismissing Barnett's non-CEPA counts based on at-will status	Barnett: statutory tenure protections apply, so dismissal was improper	HFD: Barnett is at-will and not entitled to statutory tenure protections for some charges	Court: reversal — summary judgment was improper because statutory protections apply to fire districts, requiring further proceedings

Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217 N.J. 22 (standard of review for summary judgment)
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366 (de novo review of legal issues on summary judgment)
Bosland v. Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543 (statutory construction: ascertain legislative intent from text)
Pizzullo v. N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 196 N.J. 251 (plain meaning guides statutory interpretation)
N.E.R.I. Corp. v. N.J. Highway Auth., 147 N.J. 223 (in pari materia construction of related statutes)
Varsolona v. Breen Capital Servs., 180 N.J. 605 (use of subsequent legislation as an interpretive aid)
Horsnall v. Washington Twp. Div. of Fire, 405 N.J. Super. 304 (App. Div.) (holding statutory tenure protections apply to fire district firefighters)