The MERIT Act targets a specific group: individuals who were in a probationary or trial status and were separated during a mass termination by an executive agency between January 20, 2025 and the date of enactment. It creates a reinstatement pathway back into the former employing agency to the same or a substantially similar position, with back pay for the period from termination to appointment if the employee would have remained in the prior role.
The bill also outlines how pay is to be determined after reinstatement, and establishes a notice and selection process that agencies must follow within tight time frames, along with reporting duties to oversight bodies. The act does not redefine the broader personnel rules of the civil service; instead, it provides a discrete remedy for a narrowly defined class of terminations and sets up procedural and financial mechanics to support reinstatement.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a reinstatement entitlement for affected probationary employees to the former agency in a same-or-similar position, with back pay for the period between termination and appointment if applicable.
Who It Affects
Executive agencies that perform mass terminations, affected probationary employees, and the Office of Personnel Management responsible for pay calculations and administration.
Why It Matters
It establishes a formal remedy for a defined class of terminations, standardizes the reinstatement process, and attaches a pay-determination framework and oversight reporting to monitor outcomes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The MERIT Act introduces a targeted remedy for a subset of federal workers who were in a probationary status and were part of a mass termination. Mass terminations are defined as at least 15 separations within a 30-day window by an executive agency.
The key provision requires the former employing agency to offer a reinstatement to a position that is the same or similar to the prior one. If the employee accepts, they receive back pay for the period from termination to appointment, aligning compensation with what they would have earned had they not been separated.
If the employee is moving to a new federal role at enactment, the act provides a framework for calculating the pay differential between the old position and the new one, potentially including additional pay components as earned in the new role. The act also sets a notice-and-selection timetable: agencies must inform affected probationary employees within 30 days of enactment and individuals must respond within 30 days regarding whether they accept or reject the reinstatement.
If they fail to respond, their entitlement can be forfeited. The legislation requires the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to determine the appropriate pay for the reinstated position and authorizes information sharing with agencies to support this process.
Two mandated reports accompany the bill: a mass-termination report from the Comptroller General to Congress within 60 days of enactment, and a reinstatement report from OPM within 90 days. Overall, the MERIT Act creates a structured, budget-conscious pathway to re-employ and compensate certain probationary employees who were the target of mass terminations.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines affected probationary employees as those terminated in a mass termination (15+ separations in 30 days) between Jan 20, 2025 and enactment.
Reinstatement is to a former agency position that is the same or similar to the previous job.
Back pay is provided for the period from termination to appointment if the employee would have remained in the prior position.
There is a mandated 30-day notice to affected probationary employees and a separate 30-day selection window for accepting reinstatement.
OPM and the Comptroller General have specific reporting and pay-determination duties to support the program.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions
This section defines key terms used throughout the act, including affected probationary employee, competitive service, covered separation, excepted service, executive agency, former employing agency, mass termination, previous federal position, and Senior Executive Service. These definitions establish the scope of who can be reinstated, under what conditions, and how terms like ‘mass termination’ are measured (not less than 15 separations in 30 days). The definitions anchor the policy mechanics that follow in later sections.
Reinstatement of affected probationary employees
Section 3 creates the core remedy: an affected probationary employee is entitled to an appointment in the former employing agency to the same or a similar position, and, if electing to accept, a back-pay payment for the period between termination and appointment, calculated as if the individual had not been separated. It also addresses scenarios where the employee obtains a new federal position and the pay implications, including how the pay difference versus the previous agency is treated. This section effectively converts a mass termination into a reinstatement obligation with a defined compensation framework.
Notice and selection
This section requires the head of each executive agency to notify affected probationary employees within 30 days of enactment about their rights under the act and the process for accepting or rejecting reinstatement. It also requires a 30-day acceptance/rejection window; failure to inform the former employing agency can forfeit entitlement to reinstatement. The provision is designed to create a clear, time-bound path from notice to selection, reducing ambiguity and ensuring timely reinstatement decisions.
Separation treatment
Section 5 states that an affected probationary employee is deemed to have been involuntarily separated without cause from the previous federal position. This characterization underpins the eligibility for reinstatement and the subsequent treatment of pay and benefits, aligning the status of affected probationary employees with a formal separation narrative for purposes of the act.
Payment determination
This section delegates pay-determination to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, who must use evidence provided by the employee or otherwise determine pay. It includes timelines for submitting pay evidence (up to 60 days after notice) and clarifies taxation treatment, the non-application of certain pay caps to these payments, and reinstatement to the competitive service independent of subchapter I of title 5 when applicable. The mechanics ensure a defensible basis for pay amounts tied to prior or new positions.
Reports
Section 7 requires two key reports: a mass-termination report from the Comptroller General within 60 days of enactment detailing the scope and reasons for mass terminations, and a reinstatement report from the Director of OPM within 90 days noting how many affected probationary employees were notified and how many accepted reinstatement. These reports provide oversight and visibility into how the provisions are working in practice.
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, who gain a defined path back to a position in the former agency with potential back pay for the gap between termination and reinstatement.
- Former employing agencies, which can regain or preserve institutional knowledge by reintegrating employees into positions similar to those held before termination.
- Office of Personnel Management, which gains a clear pay-determination framework to harmonize compensation for reinstated employees.
- Comptroller General and Congress, which receive structured reporting on mass terminations and reinstatement outcomes.
- Agency HR offices, which receive statutory direction on notices, selection, and pay calculations that streamline processes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Taxpayers, who ultimately bear the back-pay and administrative costs associated with reinstatement and the pay-determination process.
- Former employing agencies, which may incur back-pay obligations and administrative overhead related to reinstatement and payroll changes.
- OPM and agency HR budgets, which must absorb the costs of pay determinations and implementation of the new process.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between providing a fair, rule-based remedy for a defined class of terminated probationary employees and the practical budgetary and administrative strain of implementing back-pay and reinstatement across multiple agencies, especially when pay levels and benefits must be aligned with different prior and current positions.
The MERIT Act cleanly specifies a remedy for a narrowly defined group of terminations, but it also introduces a set of implementation challenges and policy tensions. The back-pay calculation hinges on pay that employees would have earned but for their separation, which can be difficult to verify precisely for all individuals and all positions.
The pay-determination process relies on evidence supplied by employees and possibly external data, creating potential disputes over what constitutes sufficient evidence and which pay elements count toward the calculation. The requirement of a 30-day notice and a 30-day acceptance window creates tight timelines that could strain agency HR functions, especially for large mass-term event responses.
Finally, the plan to fund back pay and administration through general appropriations raises questions about the budgetary impact and whether agencies will face funding constraints that affect the speed and completeness of reinstatements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.