Writing Your Own Memo

Write the heading segment. The heading segment should include to whom the memo is written, who
has written the memo, the complete and exact date the memo was written, and the subject matter (what
the memo is about). A sample heading would look like:
To: Name and job title of the recipient
From: Your name and job title
Date: Complete date when the memo was written
Subject: (or RE:) What the memo is about (highlighted in some way)

Always address readers by their correct name; do not use nicknames.

When constructing the heading, be sure to double space between sections and align the text.

Write the opening segment. State the purpose of the memo and identify the purpose in three parts: the
context of the problem, the particular assignment, and the purpose of the memo. Identify the exact reason
for writing the memo and make it clear to the reader.

If you are having trouble describing what you are doing to solve the problem (the task statement),
consider whether you have clarified the situation.
Include only as much information as is needed, while still being convincing that a real problem
exists.

Include a summary segment. This segment should provide a brief statement of important suggestions.
This will help the reader quickly understand the key points of the memo. The summary can also include
links or references to sources that you have used in your research on the issue.

Expand in the discussion segment.In this segment, include all of the details that support your ideas
and recommendations for solving the problem. You may also choose to propose future problems that may
arise and discuss how your recommendations ensure these problems will not occur (see tips).

Begin the discussion with the information that is most important.

Start with the most general information and move to specific or supporting facts.
Finish with a closing segment. Close the memo with a friendly ending that states what actions you want
the reader to take. Consider the ways that the reader can benefit from the information in the memo and
how these changes will be advantageous.

Be sure to consider how the reader will benefit from the desired actions and how you can make
those actions easier. You might say, "I will be glad to discuss these recommendations with you later on
and follow through on any decisions you make."
Close with a call to action. If there is something you want the reader to do by a particular time, say so.

Review for spelling, grammar, and content errors. Pay particular attention to names, dates, or
numbers. Be consistent in the type of language you use.

Get personal. Use words like "I," "you," and "we." To initiate action, write in active voice.
Be conversational. Write the way you talk and do not be afraid to use contractions.
Don't show off. Avoid scholarly words and technical jargon.
Avoid "smothered" words: Simple root words with fancy endings tacked on. Favorites are "tion,"
"ance," "ent," "ment," "ize," and "ility." Example: Don't say, "The continuation of our issuance of incentives
is dependent upon the prioritization by employees of company objectives." Instead, say, "If you want to
keep getting incentives, meet company goals."

To: Customers of Chloes Cupcakes

From: Dan Lionel, Public Relations Liaison
Date: May 12, 2012
Subject: Publication of Nutrition Facts
Due to extensive customer feedback, we at Chloes Cupcakes would like to demonstrate our commitment
to making healthy choices by publishing nutrition information for all of our baked goods. Although our
stores would not be required by law to provide the nutrition facts of our products, we agree that customers
should have access to as much information as they desire before making a purchase.
We are confident that that you, the customer, will feel better about choosing Chloes Cupcakes once you
are aware of these facts. We are committed to use the best locally grown ingredients in our baked goods,
and we freshly prepare all of our desserts each morning. Moreover, we have a line of vegan treats that
substitute some of the highest-calorie ingredients in non-vegan goods with healthier optionswhile still
delivering great flavor. For those customers who are looking to splurge, we have an exquisite selection of
decadent treats too, including our famous crme brle macaroon sundae.
All of our nutrition information will be available online, along with a list of ingredients and possible
substitutes for those with dietary restrictions. We will also provide pamphlets in stores with the same
information, to be updated periodically. As it is cumbersome to obtain accurate nutritional analyses of
handmade food products, we are unable to guarantee access to nutritional information for seasonal
flavors and promotional items.
Best,
Dan Lionel
____________________________________________________________________________________
To: All Staff and Interns
From: Ana Lucily, Executive Assistant to the President
Date: July 15, 2012
Subject: Dishes in the Sink
It has come to our attention that there has been a pile of unwashed dishes that accumulates in the sink by
the end of each week. It has gotten so bad that washing ones hands in the kitchen sink becomes an
uncomfortable undertaking. Therefore, we are introducing a new policy that mandates that employees
wash their dishes as soon as they are done with them, keeping the sink clear for other uses.
If you do not have the time to wash your lunch container or coffee mug, leave it by your desk until you are
ready to wash it. Even two or three dirty plates will encourage every person thereafter to leave their
unwashed, food-stained dishes and silverware in the sink. Conversely, studies have shown that when a
sink is empty, people are more likely to wash their dishes immediately.
Thank you for your cooperation!

Best,
Ana Lucily

SAMPLE EMPLOYEE MEMORANDUM

To:

[specify distribution]

From:

[CEO or senior management official]

Subject: Computer Software and U.S. Copyright Law

Date:

[insert]

The purpose of this memorandum is to remind you of [name of organization]'s policy concerning the
illegal copying and use of commercial software. Unlicensed duplication or unauthorized use of any
software program is illegal and can expose you and the company to civil and criminal liability under the
copyright law.

To ensure that you do not violate the software publisher's copyright, you should not copy any program
installed on your computer for any purpose without permission from [insert name of responsible
manager or department]. Likewise, you should not install any program onto your computer without such
permission or clear verification that the company owns a license to cover that installation. Finally, you
should not download unauthorized software from the Internet.

The company will not tolerate any employee making unauthorized copies of software.
The company will not tolerate any employee downloading or uploading unauthorized software
from the Internet.
Any employee found copying software illegally is subject to termination from the company.
Any employee illegally copying software to give to any third party, including clients and
customers, is also subject to termination.
If you want to use software licensed by the company at home, you must consult with [insert
name of manager] in order to make sure such use is permitted by the publishers license.

This policy will be strictly enforced to make sure that you and the company are not exposed to serious
legal consequences.
[Insert name of manager] will be visiting your department over the next week to inventory the software
installations on your computers and to ascertain that the company owns licenses for each copy of a
software product. If unlicensed copies are found, they will be deleted, and if necessary, replaced with
licensed copies. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

TO: Paralegal
FROM: Mary Alice Kenny, Senior Partner
DATE: May 30, 2003
RE: Angela Tattletale, File No. 92-111

Yesterday I interviewed a new client, Angela Tattletale. Ms. Tattletale has decided to
retain our
law firm to represent her in an action against her employer for terminating her.
During my interview with Ms. Tattletale, she described the events leading up to her
dismissal.
Ms. Tattletale works for We Cheat Um & Howe Trucking Company. We Cheat Um sells
and
leases used trucks of all varieties. Ms. Tattletale said that as of last year, We Cheat
Up has been
purchasing used trucks that were used to transport hazardous and toxic materials,
and is reselling
or leasing the rucks to customers without telling them about the prior use made of
the trucks.
Ms. Tattletale told me that a large percentage of these trucks will be rented this
summer to store
food at the Taste of Chicago
On January 3, 2003, Ms. Tattletale had an argument with her immediate supervisor,
Joe Ponelli,
over her excessive tardiness. Ms. Tattletale said she was so angry that later that
afternoon she
called the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency and the State s Attorney s Office
and
reported her employer s activities concerning leasing and selling used trucks that
had held
hazardous and toxic materials.
We Cheat Um is located in an industrial area of the town of Suburbia. Suburbia has
Ordinance
9-20 which states:
In order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Suburbia, an
employee
of any entity doing business in Suburbia shall be required to report any violations of
the State or
Federal health and environmental laws and regulations. Failure by an employee to
report any
violations will subject the employee to a $500.00 fine.
On February 3, 2003, We Cheat Um received a letter from the Illinois EPA informing
company
officials of the opening of an investigation concerning selling and leasing trucks that
had held
hazardous and toxic waste. On February 4, 2003, Ms. Tattletale was terminated
without

severance pay. We Cheat Um told her she was terminated for excessive tardiness. Ms. Tattletale
insists she was fired for blowing the whistle on We Cheat Um. I want to pursue a claim against
We Cheat Um for retaliatory discharge.
By July 11, 2003, prepare a legal memorandum on the cause of action for retaliatory discharge.

Check for any federal or state statutes on retaliatory discharge. Also, see if there
are any whistleblowing statutes. Find only Illinois cases on this issue. Discuss any
statutes and cases and applythem to Ms. Tattletale s case. Tell me if Ms. Tattletale
has a cause of action for retaliatory discharge.

RESPONSE MEMORANDUM

TO: Mary Alice Kenny

FROM: Diane M. McAvoy
DATE: June 24, 1992
RE: Angela Tattletale, File No. 92-111
ISSUES PRESENTED

I. Whether an employee, Ms. Tattletale, who was discharged for reporting her
employer s
activities concerning selling and leasing trucks containing hazardous and toxic
waste,
may state a cause of action for retaliatory discharge.
II. Whether the discharge of Ms. Tattletale, as a result of her reporting, violates a
clear
mandate of public policy.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Angela Tattletale was employed by We Cheat Um & Howe Trucking Company (We
Cheat Um), a business that sells and leases used trucks for a variety of purposes.
MS. Tattletale knew that some We Cheat Um trucks were used to transport
hazardous and toxic materials and were resold or leased to customers without We
Cheat Um informing the customers about the prior use made of the trucks. Ms.
Tattletale became aware that some trucks were to be rented to store food at the
Taste of Chicago festival. On January 3, 2003, Ms. Tattletale had an argument with
her employer over her excessive tardiness. Later that afternoon, Ms. Tattletale

reported her employer s activities to the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(IEPA) andthe State s Attorneys Office.
In Suburbia, where We Cheat Um is located there is an ordinance that states as
follows: In order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Suburbia,
an employee of any entity doing business in Suburbia shall be required to report
any violations of State or Federal health and environmental laws and regulations.
Failure by an employee to report any violations will subject the employee to a
$500.00 fine.
On February 3, 2003, We Cheat Um received notice from the IEPA that an
investigation had been opened concerning selling and leasing trucks containing
hazardous and toxic waste. On February 4, 2003, We Cheat Um informed Ms.
Tattletale that she was terminated for excessive tardiness.
DISCUSSION

The first issue is whether an employee discharged for alleged excessive tardiness
can state a cause of action for retaliatory discharge for reporting her employer s
activities regarding toxic and hazardous waste. The second issue presented is
whether an employer s discharge of an employee, as a result of the employee s
reporting of the employer s unlawful activities, violates a clear mandate of public
policy.
Until 1978, the law provided that an employee who did not have an employment
contract was terminable at the will of the employer, and he employee had no cause
of action against the employer as a result of the discharge. Brougham v. Paul, 138
Ill. App. 455 (1908). IN 1978, the Illinois Supreme Court first recognized a tort action
for retaliatory discharge. Kelsay v. Motorola, Inc., 74 Ill. 2d 172, 384 N.E.2d 353
(1978). In Kelsay court concluded that the employee properly stated a cause of
action for retaliatory discharge. In doing so, the court relied on section 138.4(h) of
the Workers Compensation Act, which now states in part: It shall be unlawful for
any employer... to interfere with, restrain or coerce an employee in any manner
whatsoever in the exercise of the rights or remedies granted to him or her by
this Act.It shall be unlawful for any employer... to discharge or to threaten to
discharge, or to refuse to rehire or recall to active service in a suitable capacity an
employee because of the exercise of his or her rights or remedies granted to him or
her by this Act. Ill. Ann. Stat. ch.48, para. 138.4(h) (Smith-Hud 1986 & Supp. 1992).
In construing the statute, the court held that the plaintiff could maintain a civil
action for retaliatory discharge The court concluded that the legislative intent of the
Workers Compensation Act was to protect employees who exercise their right to file
a claim under the Act.
In this case, the Workers Compensation Act does not apply because Ms. Tattletale
did not file a workers compensation claim. Nevertheless, the public policy
consideration noted in Kelsay and its holding may apply to this case if we can
establish that public policy has been violated.

In Palmateer v. International Harvester Co., 85 Ill. 2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981),
the plaintiff, a 16-year employee of International Harvester, alleged that the
company discharged him because he informed local law enforcement authorities of
a possible violation of the criminal code by a co-employee and because the plaintiff
agreed to assist in the investigation and trial of the co-employee. The Illinois
Supreme Court broadened its application of Kelsay and held that the plaintiff had
stated a cause for retaliatory discharge. In doing so the court stated, all that is
required is that the employer discharge an employee in retaliation for the employee
s activities, and that the discharge be in contravention of a clearly mandated public
policy. Palmateer, 85 Ill. 2d at 134, 421 N.E.2d at 881.
The supreme court viewed its broader recognition of retaliatory discharge as
necessary to maintain a proper balance... among the employer s interest in
operating a business efficiently and profitable, the employee s interest in earning a
livelihood and society s interest in seeing its public policies carried out. Palmateer,
85 Ill. 2d at 129, 421 N.E.2d at 878. The courtacknowledged, however, that the
chilles heel of the principle lies in the definition of public policy. Palmateer, 85 Ill. 2d
at 130, 421 N.E.2d at 878. In balancing the respective interests noted above, the
Palmateer court recognized that no public policy is more basic than the enforcement
of a state s criminal code. Once the plaintiff in Palmateer reported the possibility of
a crime, he had a statutory duty to further assist public officials. In Palmateer, the
cot held that to establish a cause of action for retaliatory discharge, a plaintiff is
required to plead and prove the following elements: (1) the plaintiff was discharged,
(2) in retaliation for certain activity, and (3) that the discharge violates a clear
mandate of public policy. Palmateer, 85 Ill. 2d at 134, 421
N.E.2d at 881.
In this case, there is no question that Ms. Tattletale was discharged. The remaining
issues are whether Ms. Tattletale was discharged in retaliation for her action in
reporting her employer s unlawful ctivities to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency and whether her discharge violates a clear mandate of public policy. There
is a series of statutes dealing with environmental protection, including protection
against hazardous and toxic waste. Section 1052(a) of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act provides:
No person shall fire, or in any other way discriminate against, or cause to be fired or
discriminated against, any employee or any authorized representative of employees
by reason of the fact that such employee or representative has filed, instituted, or
caused to be filed or instituted any proceeding under this Act, has testified or is
about to testify in any proceeding resulting from the administration or enforcement
of the provisions of this Act, or offers any evidence of any violation of this Act.
Ill. Ann. Stat. Ch. 111 , para. 1052(a) (Smith-Hurd 1988 & Supp. 1992). This is
virtuallyidentical to section 138.4(h) of the Workers Compensation Act cited by the
Illinois Supreme Court in Kelsay, where the court first recognized a cause of action
for retaliatory discharge. In addiction, Ordinance 9-20 enacted by the Village of
Suburbia states:
In order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Suburbia, an
employee of any entity doing business in Suburbia shall be required to report any
violations of State or Federal health and environmental laws and regulations. Failure

by an employee to report any violations will subject the employee to a $500.00 fine.
In Wheeler v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 108 Ill. 2d 502, 485 N.E.2d 372 (1985(, Wheeler
was a radiographer in the X-ray department of Caterpillar Tractor Company, where
he handled
radioactive cobalt. Wheeler asked for a transfer out of his unit because he feared for
his safety. Wheeler alleged that he was denied a transfer and was discharged in
retaliation for his refusal to work with cobalt. In Wheeler, the court was dealing with
a Federal statute, section 210 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C.
5851 (1982).
In Wheeler, the court held that if Wheeler could prove the allegations set forth in his
complaints, he was entitled to recover for retaliatory discharge. Because plaintiff
alleged his
discharge was in violation of a clearly mandated public policy, the court stated that
[the
protection of the lives and property of citizens from hazards of radioactive material
is as
important and fundamental as protecting them from crimes of violence. Wheeler,
108 Ill. 2d at
511, 485 N.E.2d at 377.
The federal Energy Reorganization Act contains a provision similar to the one found
in the Illinois Workers Compensation Act and the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act: Any employee who believes that he has been discharged or otherwise
discriminated against by any person in violation of subsection (a) of this section
may, within thirty days after such violation occurs, file (or have any person file on
his behalf) a complaint with the Secretaryof Labor (hereinafter in ths subsection
referred to as the Secretary) alleging such discharge or discrimination. Upon receipt
of such a complaint, the Secretary shall notify the person named in the complaint of
the filing of the complaint and the Commission.
42 U.S.C. 5851(b) (1988). The court held that in addition to the remedy provided
in the federal statue, Mr. Wheeler had an action for retaliatory discharge. In Balla v.
Gambro, Inc., 203 Ill. App.3d 57, 560 N.E.2d 1043 (1990), Balla was in-house
counsel for Gambro and reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that
Gambro would be receiving and selling defective dialyzers. Balla was terminated
shortly afterward. The court held that there is no public policy more important than
the one favoring the effective protection of the lives and property of its citizens. For
safety reasons, public policy clearly favored the prevention of interstate and
intrastate distribution of misbranded or adulterized
dialyzers.
It is clear that both federal and Illinois statutes express strong public policies to
prevent the possible harm to citizens by contamination from toxic and hazardous
waste. In Ms. Tattletale s case, there is even a statute that requires all employees to
report any violations, and an employee s failure to do so subjects the employee to a
possible criminal charge and a $500.00 fine. Therefore, it is evident that the Village
of Suburbia s public policy mandates that employees report any violations to the
appropriate authority. Nevertheless, Ms. Tattletale would still be required to

establish that she was discharged in retaliation for her reporting of her employer s
activities.
In Zientara v. Long Creek Township, 211 Ill. App. 3d 226, 569 N.E.2d 1299 (1991), a
township employee worked in the water department and noticed and reported to
authorities several dangerous conditions that existed in the water tower and that
were in violation of IEPA regulations. Relying on the Illinois Freedom of Information
Act, the employee also requested information about finances of the water plant and
superintendent s salary. In addition, theemployee inquired about the superintendent
s use and abuse of the township s truck and water plant, and complained that he
was not being paid enough for overtime.
In Zientara, the court attempted to define what constitutes clearly mandated public
policy. Zientara, 211 Ill. Ap. 3d at 236, 569 N.E.2d at 1304. Before the action will be
allowed a matter must strike at the heart of a citizen s social rights, duties, and
responsibilities. Where only a private interest is at stake, the action will not be
allowed. The court construed the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and held that
an employee must be allowed to call to the attention of the appropriate authority a
violation of the Act without being discharged in retaliation. In Fellhauer v. City of
Geneva, 142 Ill. 2d 495, 568 N.E.2d 870 (1991), Fellhauer was a former director of
the city electric department and brought a retaliatory discharge action against the
Mayor and City of Geneva. Fellhauer alleged that Lewis, prior to being elected as
Mayor, asked Fellhauer to slow down negotiations with WEPCO for sale of electric
power to the city. Fellhauer refused. Later, Lewis was elected, and Fellhauer alleged
that Mayor Lewis solicited
contributions from city vendors and that Fellhauer told these vendors they need not
contribute. Fellhauer further alleged that he referred questions to the city attorney.
Fellhauer also alleged that Mayor Lewis asked him to sell out contracts with WEPCO
and negotiate new contracts with Commonwealth Edison. Fellhauer again refused.
Fellhauer reported these actions to the city council s electric committee. After Mayor
Lewis told him to stop, the Mayor terminated Fellhauer.
The court held that Fellhauer could not establish that he was discharged because of
his activities. The statute in Fellhauer dealing with public employees add the Mayor
s authority to discharge an appoint officer made Fellhauer dismissal not a violation
of clearly mandated public policy.In Ms. Tattletale s case, the employer states that it
fired Ms. Tattletale because of her excessive tardiness. If this is true, she will have
no action for retaliatory discharge. However, a careful review of the facts
establishes that the argument she had with her immediate supervisor over
excessive tardiness took place on January 3, 2003, and she was not terminated until
February 4, 2003, one day after We Cheat Um received notice from the IEPA that an
investigation had been initiated. Therefore, although We Cheat Um might claim to
have fired Ms. Tattletale for excessive tardiness, We Cheat Um waited more than
thirty days to fire her. It appears the real reason for the discharge was Ms. Tattletale
s report to the IEPA.
CONCLUSION

Ms. Tattletale can plead a case for retaliatory discharge and claim that the discharge
was in violation of a clearly mandated public policy. However, the question will

remain at trial as to whether she was discharged because of her excessive tardiness
or as a result of her whistleblowing regarding her mployer s unlawful activities
concerning hazardous and toxic materials.
Because of her employer s delay in firing her, the facts appear to show that she was
discharged as
a result of her whistle-blowing.
Ms. Tattletale may not only have a claim for retaliatory discharge, but as noted in
Wheeler, she may also commence an action under the federal Energy
Reorganization Act by filing a claim with the US Department of Labor, which may
provide for reinstatement of position, attorneys fees and costs, and compensatory
damages.

http://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Memo
http://www.brc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Sample-Memorandum.pdf
http://lawandborder.com/Academic/LW/LW--Samples/SampleMemoSTCL.pdf

Technical English
TTh 14:00-15:30
FRC 404

Suarez, Jhon Geronimo V.

Jose Rizal O.
B.S. Information Technology
Professor

Dapat,