By: Cara Latham
WASHINGTON A state Superior Court Judge in Trenton has ruled that the township must reinstate former Washington Township Fire District Capt. David Horsnall with back pay.
In addition, the judge gave the township no option to hold off doing so while it appeals the decision.
During a court hearing on Aug. 10, state Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg on Aug. 10 ruled in favor of Mr. Horsnall, who claimed that the new township Division of Fire which was what the Fire District became following the dissolution would not hire him after the township dissolved the Fire District.
Following the dissolution, firefighters were required to interview for positions with the new Division of Fire. Mr. Horsnall, after working with the Fire District for 18 years, said he was not given a reason for his loss of employment.
Township officials said they plan to appeal the decision and in the meantime, appeal the judge’s action to forbid them from holding off on Mr. Horsnall’s reinstatement and back pay until after the appeal process.
Mr. Horsnall said he was looking forward to getting back on the job and serving township residents like he has done for the past 18 years.
"I’m very happy that the courts have decided in our favor, and that the courts based this case on factual law," he said.
John Rowland, Mr. Horsnall’s attorney, said after the decision that he believed the judge came to the right conclusion.
"He came to work and was told he didn’t have a job anymore," he said. "He never had any due process and he had to take this fight on by himself. He had to fight for his job back when he had essentially done nothing wrong."
Judge Feinberg heard oral arguments on the case back in June, but held off on a decision until further research into the case could be done.
Mr. Rowland said he believed the judge was well-schooled on the issue, as "nobody’s ever dealt with tenured paid firefighters in the face of dissolution before," he said.
Mr. Rowland said even though there were no previous cases that actually dealt with a fire district dissolution, enough of them dealt with similar issues, where municipalities were either abolishing a department in its entirety or abolishing positions, and in all of those cases which go back as far as 117 years the tenure statutes protected the individuals.
"A municipality can abolish an entire department, as long as they put in something different in its place," he said.
The township had argued that Mr. Horsnall was never an employee of the township and that he couldn’t have been improperly fired because he had never worked for the new entity. Further, they had argued, the township wasn’t obligated to accept back every single person if they didn’t perform well in the interviews.
But because the township abolished the district, but made no substantial changes to it, except to change its name to the Division of Fire, it doesn’t mean that there were legitimate changes, Mr. Rowland said.
Therefore, "the person who had tenure before should be back in that position because they were removed illegally," Mr. Rowland added.
Mr. Rowland said the judge was expected to issue a written decision sometime this week, and that she will probably give the township a couple of weeks to make the arrangements to reinstate him.
Township Attorney Mark Roselli said Monday that he was initially disappointed with the judge’s decision, but said the township followed the law when it dissolved the fire district.
"We did everything the law required us to do in addition to basically keeping with the mood the New Jersey Legislature has been, with respect to consolidating and consolidation of services," he said.
Instead, "the court wanted a result and backed into that result," he said, adding that he believed the judge was legislating from the bench.
"There’s no case on point," Mr. Roselli added. "The court went to great lengths to justify a position (Judge Feinberg) wanted."
After the judge issues her written decision, Mr. Roselli said, the township will file an appeal, and in that application, ask that the township canbe able hold off reinstating and issuing back pay to Mr. Horsnall until it goes through that process.
Township Administrator Mary Caffrey on Monday echoed the sentiment, saying that she was struck by some of the comments the judge made regarding the issue of interpreting legislative intent. She said township officials believed the judge was relishing the opportunity to have her first crack at the issue.
And "it’s not like you can rely on precedence," she said. "There is no precedence. This is it."
In addition, both she and Mr. Roselli expressed concern about implications the ruling could have not just on the township, but on other municipalities.
"It’s a timely topic and important topic, and I’d rather the law be made at the legislative level, not at the judicial level," Mr. Roselli said. "It’s going to impact many levels of government in the state. She said that this would probably be the precedent decision other people would use to make determinations."
An issue that remains outstanding regarding the lawsuit is whether the township is responsible for Mr. Horsnall’s attorneys fees, but both sides are issuing briefs to the judge on the matter.
Ms. Caffrey said the township set this year’s budget without funds to pay for Mr. Horsnall’s reinstatement and back baypay, and officials will be looking at areas to see if they can cut some costs. Mr. Horsnall said he made about $70,000 last year. The amount of his back pay has not yet been finalized.
For now, she said, the township will put a hold on parking lot improvements at the fire station. At its Aug. 9 meeting, the Township Council introduced a bond ordinance to set aside $160,000 for those improvements, which Ms. Caffrey said were necessary because the pavement there had become so damaged by the fire engines coming in and out of the lot that fire officials were having a hard time driving over it.
Ms. Caffrey said the township is still looking into other options, though, because the employees at the Division of Fire are doing a fantastic job since the dissolution, and township officials don’t want to trigger any changes that would affect how public safety services are delivered.
"We’re not willing to undo that process," she said.

