The MERIT Act requires reinstatement for affected probationary federal employees who were separated during mass terminations in early 2025. It defines who qualifies as an affected probationary employee and establishes a process for returning them to a former employing agency in a position that is the same or similar to their prior role, with back pay designed to bridge the period between termination and reinstatement.
The bill also sets out how pay is calculated, how notice and acceptance of an appointment must occur, and how the move interacts with benefits and federal pay rules. The objective is to provide a standardized remedy for ill-advised terminations while outlining the administrative steps agencies must follow to implement reinstatement.
At a Glance
What It Does
Reinstates affected probationary employees to a former agency in a similar role and provides back pay for the period between termination and reinstatement, with formulas for other related payments if the employee has taken a new federal position.
Who It Affects
Executive agencies and their payroll/HR offices must implement notices, selections, and payments; affected probationary employees and their former agencies are directly impacted.
Why It Matters
Establishes a uniform remedy for mass terminations by defining eligibility, payment mechanics, and a clear timeline, reducing ambiguity for agencies and employees alike.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act targets workers who were on probation or trial periods when their agency carried out a mass termination beginning January 20, 2025. It creates a framework to reinstate these individuals to a position in the same or a closely related role within their former agency if the employee chooses to accept.
When reinstatement occurs, the employee would receive back pay for the period from the termination date through enactment, minus any earnings in a new federal position if the employee already moved to another role. The law also lays out how an employee’s pay for any new position is to be calculated and how the agency must coordinate with the Office of Personnel Management to determine the correct level of compensation.
Notably, the bill provides a separate payment structure for cases where the employee obtained a new federal job after termination, combining back pay with any earnings from that new job, and it includes an explicit protection that pay should not drop below zero. It also requires a 30-day notice to affected employees and a 30-day window to accept or reject reinstatement, with forfeiture if the employee does not respond.
A deemed involuntary separation clause ensures that the act treats the prior separation as without cause for purposes of the reinstatement process. Finally, the act calls for reporting on mass terminations and reinstatement activity to Congress and sets definitions to bound the program’s scope and terms.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act defines an "affected probationary employee" as someone separated during a mass termination between January 20, 2025 and enactment who held a probationary or trial period before separation.
Reinstatement under Section 2 requires placement in a former agency in a position that is the same or similar to the prior role, upon the employee’s acceptance.
Pay under the Act is calculated as the difference between what the employee would have earned in the old role and earnings in any new federal position, subject to an overall zero-floor.
Notice to affected employees and a 30-day window for acceptance are required; failure to respond forfeits the entitlement to reinstatement.
An affected probationary employee is treated as involuntarily separated without cause, for the purposes of the reinstatement framework.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This section provides the act’s formal name: the Model Employee Reinstatement for Ill-advised Termination Act, or the MERIT Act. It establishes the basic framing and assigns the bill’s official nomenclature for reference in later provisions.
Reinstatement of affected probationary employees
Section 2 lays out the core remedy: eligible individuals are entitled to an appointment in their former employing agency in a position that matches or closely resembles their prior role, contingent on election to accept the appointment. It also specifies how the accompanying payments are determined, balancing back pay with any earnings in a new federal position, and sets the framework for when such payments occur and how they interact with existing federal pay rules.
Notice and selection
This section requires the heads of executive agencies to notify affected probationary employees within 30 days of enactment and to provide a mechanism for employees to inform the agency of acceptance or rejection of the reinstatement offer within 30 days. It also describes the consequences of not providing timely notice or response, including potential forfeiture of the entitlement.
Separation treatment
Section 4 states that each affected probationary employee is deemed to have been involuntarily separated without cause from the prior Federal position. This designation clarifies the legal posture of the separation for purposes of eligibility and the reinstatement process.
Payment determination
This section assigns the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the responsibility to determine pay for the reinstated position, using evidence provided by the employee or, if insubstantial, other appropriate information. It also governs the timing of payment and confirms tax treatment as wages. It sets out how long employees may submit evidence and how payments relate to the enactment date.
Reports
The act requires the Comptroller General to report on mass terminations and the reinstatement process, including the number of terminations, the number of affected probationary employees, and recommendations for extending the act’s provisions. It also requires OPM to report on reinstatement activity, including totals notified and accepted appointments.
Definitions
This section provides key definitions: affected probationary employee, competitive service, mass termination, former employing agency, and several other terms that anchor the act’s terminology and scope.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Affected probationary employees receive a defined path to reinstatement with back pay and a formal notice/acceptance process.
- Former employing agencies gain a standardized mechanism to restore staffing levels and preserve institutional knowledge by reappointing employees to similar roles.
- Office of Personnel Management gains a clear statutory mandate to determine appropriate pay and manage data required for reinstatement.
- Federal employee unions and advocacy groups gain a concrete remedy framework to protect workers’ rights after mass terminations.
- Congressional oversight receives structured data through mandated reports on mass terminations and reinstatement activity.
Who Bears the Cost
- Former employing agencies face back-pay obligations and administrative costs to process reinstatements and payments.
- The U.S. Treasury or general fund must finance back-pay and related payments, creating a budgetary obligation beyond the normal payroll for affected employees.
- HR and payroll systems across agencies experience increased administrative burden to implement notices, acceptances, and pay calculations.
- OPM incurs ongoing administrative workload to determine pay, collect evidence, and coordinate with agencies.
- Tax and payroll compliance costs rise as payments are treated as wages and integrated into existing withholding and benefit systems.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize a rapid, standardized remedy for ill-advised terminations (with potential near-term budgetary costs and administrative complexity) or to constrain a remedy that could complicate payroll, budgeting, and workforce planning across dozens of agencies.
The MERIT Act introduces a remedy that addresses the fairness gap created by mass terminations, but it does so at a meaningful administrative and budgetary cost. The pay computations hinge on what the employee would have earned in the absence of termination, offset by any earnings in a new federal position; this creates a dynamic that could be complex to audit and implement across agencies with divergent pay structures.
The notice-and-acceptance process relies on timely action by employees; delays or miscommunications could reduce the remedy’s effectiveness. The act also requires significant data sharing and reporting, which will demand additional resources from OPM and the Comptroller General to track outcomes and assess policy impact.
These tensions are balanced by a clear commitment to restoring a payroll and placement pathway that aligns with the government’s broader personnel-management objectives.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.