Skip to content

Notices, letters and closure templates

Suspension Pending Investigation & Interim Measures Memo

Last updated 2026-07-30

Interim measures are the steps taken while the investigation runs: schedule changes, reporting-line changes, separation of the parties, occasionally suspension. They exist to manage risk during the process, not to anticipate its outcome.

The recurring failure is that the measure lands on the complainant. Moving the person who complained — changing their shift, relocating their desk, shifting their duties — is read as retaliatory almost regardless of the intention behind it, and it produces a second complaint that is often stronger than the first. Where separation is necessary, the starting presumption should be that the burden falls on the respondent.

Jurisdiction

Written primarily against US federal standards — EEOC guidance, NLRB decisions and Title VII case law — and against general investigative practice. State law, sector rules (public employers, education, regulated industries) and collective agreements impose additional requirements this page does not cover. Where a page borrows a concept from another jurisdiction it says so explicitly. Outside the US, treat the structure as transferable and the legal references as not.

Suspension Pending Investigation template

Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.

When to use this document

  • Where continued contact between the parties creates a real risk during the investigation.
  • Where there is a safety concern or a risk of evidence interference.
  • Where the respondent holds supervisory authority over the complainant or witnesses.

Worked example

Fictional scenario, continuing the dispatch-team matter. The memo of 3 June — including the paragraph that answers the retaliation allegation nobody has made yet.

The memo

INTERIM MEASURES — MATTER RW-2026-038

Date of decision:
3 June 2026
Decision-maker:
Director of Human Resources (not the investigator)
Affected:
S. Whelan, Team Lead, Dispatch

RISK ADDRESSED

The respondent is the complainant's team lead and controls shift allocation for the dispatch team, including for two employees identified as witnesses. That is a specific and articulable risk of influence over the evidence. It is not a general concern about atmosphere, and I would not impose a measure on that basis.

MEASURE

With effect from 4 June 2026 and until reviewed, shift allocation for the dispatch team transfers to the Shift Supervisor. Mr Whelan's pay, grade, benefits, job title, duties and reporting line are unaffected. He retains all other team lead responsibilities.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Moving the complainant to another team:
rejected. It would place the burden of the measure on the person who raised the complaint, which is read as retaliatory regardless of intent and would in my view be a detriment in its own right.

Suspension: rejected. The risk identified concerns influence over shift allocation, and removing that single function addresses it. Suspension would be disproportionate and would be widely read as implying a finding.

Doing nothing: rejected for the reasons at RISK above.

NON-PUNITIVE

This measure is precautionary. No finding has been made against Mr Whelan and none may be until the investigation concludes. It is not disciplinary and will not be recorded on his file as such.

REVIEW

To be reviewed by me on 30 June 2026, and to end on the earlier of the conclusion of the investigation or a review determining the risk has abated.

COMMUNICATED

3 June, in person, by me to Mr Whelan, with the reason and the review date given as set out above. 3 June, in writing, to the Shift Supervisor — scope of the change only, no reason given.

The paragraph that matters most

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED is the one to write carefully, and it is the one most often omitted.

If a retaliation claim is made later — by either party — this is the contemporaneous record showing the decision-maker identified the obvious retaliatory option, named it, and rejected it for a stated reason. Written after the fact it is an argument. Written on 3 June it is evidence.

Note also who signed it. The investigator advised on the risk; the Director decided. An investigator who imposes measures has stopped looking impartial, whatever the merits of the measure.

Section-by-section guide

What each section is for, what a good one contains, and where they typically go wrong.

1.Memo details

Matter, date, decision-maker and who is affected.

2.Risk being addressed

The specific risk, not a general concern. 'Respondent directly supervises two witnesses and controls their shift allocation' is a risk. 'Tension in the team' is not, and will not support the measure if it is challenged.

3.Measure adopted

Exactly what is changing, for whom, from when. Include what is not changing — pay, benefits, status — because the absence of detriment is the main thing that keeps a measure from reading as discipline.

4.Why this measure and not another

Record the alternatives considered and why they were rejected, particularly if the measure affects the complainant. This is the paragraph that answers a retaliation allegation later.

5.Non-punitive statement

An express statement that the measure is precautionary, implies no finding, and will be reviewed. Say it in the memo and say it to the affected person.

6.Review date and end conditions

When it will be reviewed and what ends it. Interim measures that quietly become permanent are a common source of later claims.

7.Communication record

Who was told, when, in what terms, and what they were told about the reason.

Common mistakes

The failure modes that show up most often when this document is reviewed later.

Moving the complainant

It is read as retaliation whatever the intent, and frequently generates a second, stronger complaint. Start from the presumption that the burden falls on the respondent.

Suspending as a default

Suspension is a significant step that is often read as a finding. It needs a specific risk justification, not general caution.

No review date

Measures drift into permanence and become detriments in their own right.

The investigator deciding the measure

It compromises the appearance of impartiality. The organization decides; the investigator can advise on risk.

Questions

How long can an interim measure stay in place?
Only as long as the risk it addresses. Set a review date when you impose it and actually hold the review — measures that quietly become permanent turn into detriments in their own right, and an employee who has been on 'temporary' altered duties for eight months has a complaint of their own.
The respondent says the measure is punishing them before any finding. What do I say?
Say what the memo should already record: the specific risk it addresses, that it is precautionary, that no finding has been made, what is unaffected — pay, grade, benefits, title — and when it will be reviewed. If you cannot answer those in a sentence each, the measure may not be proportionate.
Should the respondent be suspended during an investigation?
Only where there is a specific, articulable risk that a lesser measure cannot manage — safety, evidence interference, or authority over witnesses. Suspension is widely read as implying a finding, so the memo should state expressly that it is precautionary and set a review date.
Can we move the complainant to a different team during the investigation?
It is usually the wrong choice. Even when well-intentioned, relocating the person who complained is commonly perceived as retaliatory. If there is no alternative, record the alternatives considered, the reason they were rejected, and confirm no detriment to pay, status or benefits.

The blank template

Exactly what is in the Word download, so you can see the structure before deciding whether you want it.

Memo details

Matter reference: [ ______________________ ]
Date of decision: [ ______________________ ]
Decision-maker: [Name and title — should not be the investigator]
[Matter reference, date, decision-maker, affected individuals]

Risk being addressed

[The specific, articulable risk the measure addresses]

Measure adopted

[The measure, effective date, and an express statement of what is unaffected: pay, grade, benefits, status]

Why this measure and not another

[Alternatives considered and the reason each was rejected; if the complainant is affected, the specific justification]

Non-punitive statement

[Statement that the measure is precautionary, implies no finding, and is not disciplinary]

Review date and end conditions

Review date: [ ______________________ ]
Reviewed by: [ ______________________ ]
[Review date, who reviews, and the conditions under which the measure ends]

Communication record

[Who was informed, when, how, and what explanation was given]

Download this template

Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.

Related templates

This page is a documentation aid, not legal advice. Workplace investigation requirements vary by jurisdiction, sector and policy, and a template cannot tell you what your matter requires. The worked example describes a fictional scenario.