One of the biggest fragrance companies in the world fired a perfumer after she sent’suspicious’ emails disclosing its top-secret recipes for perfume and then tried to ‘cover her tracks,’ a tribunal heard.
Madly Massengo sent a string of emails from her work computer to a personal email address that included information on the “sole true intellectual property” of the business, such as supplies, formulae, and costs.
The employment tribunal heard that the bosses at the British-based CPL Aromas were terrified to learn that Ms. Massengo’s emails indicated they had “lost all control” of the secret knowledge.
The French perfumer, who has a Masters Degree in Chemistry, Engineering, Aromatics, and Perfumery from Montpellier University, admitted sending emails to her personal account because she wanted to “work from home” when she was questioned by superiors.
However, Ms. Massengo, 39, was fired for serious wrongdoing.
She then filed a lawsuit against her company, CPL Aromas Ltd, alleging age discrimination and unjust and unfair discharge.
However, an employment tribunal sitting in East London rejected these allegations.
The court was informed that a fragrance house’s “sole true intellectual property” in a “highly competitive industry” is the formulation and price of its smells.
Fragrances often include up to 50 raw materials, and if the formulae were to be revealed, there may be “severe implications for the firm.”
The “fragrance pioneers” CPL Aromas, who produce perfumes and serve as advisers to top perfume firms, told the tribunal that this information was “tightly secured.”
Ms. Massengo began working as a trainee perfumer at CPL Aromas in April 2017 and was subsequently given the opportunity to accept a permanent position in the perfumery division pending completion of the programme, which was scheduled to end in July 2019.
Michael and Terry Pickthall launched CPL Aromas in Essex in 1971, and the company bills itself as “a global renowned fragrance house” with offices all around the globe.
Ms. Massengo was employed at the business’ Bishops Stortford, Herts, headquarters.
Ms. Massengo was informed by her supervisor Alexandra Kosinski at a review meeting in June 2019 that she was not on schedule to graduate by July and that she may not have the “necessary skills” to finish the programme.
Additionally, Ms. Kosinski raised “concerns” about Ms. Massengo’s demeanour, especially while working in a close-knit team.
She cited instances in which Ms. Massengo “refused to accept” any unfavourable feedback and believed she “already had all the abilities she needed.”
Because she was the only perfumer on the programme who was older than 30, Ms. Massengo told the tribunal that she thought her age had given the impression that she was “inflexible” or “more inclined to speak up for herself.”
But the panel was told by the managers that none of them had any knowledge of Ms. Massengo’s age or that she was older than 30.
Ms. Kosinski personally promised to assist mentor Ms. Massengo for the last part of her programme so that she may become a certified perfumer after she failed to finish the programme in July. Ms. Massengo was subsequently given a job as a quality control technician.
Ms. Massengo declined the position, however.
Senior corporate officials urged her to think again about her choice and “took pains to clarify” that if she didn’t accept and no other appropriate post was available, her employment may be terminated.
Later that month, while she remained in her trainee position, an automatic warning informed her managers that Ms. Massengo had sent two emails with meeting invitations to her personal email address, which was seen as a security violation.
She was suspended right after, and an inquiry revealed that Ms. Massengo had acted in a “suspicious” manner by sending herself emails with “critical, secret” information including the company’s formulae and pricing.
She was charged with abusing email and corporate information at a disciplinary hearing after sending herself 22 emails, eight of which were deemed “of concern.”
The tribunal heard that over the course of a five-month period, Ms. Massengo received emails containing sensitive information about the raw ingredients used in perfumes and their costs. She also transmitted an Excel spreadsheet to herself that had information on prices, formulae, and scents.
There was a list of all of her “log ins” to the secure work system. She stated that some of them “looked weird” and that “someone else” must have been logging in as her throughout the disciplinary hearing.
She was made aware that only she knew her log-in information and that allowing anybody else to know them would have been a breach.
She was fired on September 9, 2019, for serious misbehaviour.
The ruling was maintained notwithstanding Ms. Massengo’s appeal. Her employer considered her to have “broken the trust.”
She had removed the emails from her “Sent” and subsequent “Trash” folders, leaving just the two she was certain her employer had previously seen, it was discovered through the appeals process.
She further claimed that the business manual that forbade such behaviour had not been provided to her.
The tribunal rejected Ms. Massengo’s allegations in their entirety.
“We were unable to discover any convincing evidence to indicate, or from which we might infer, that someone who was younger than 30 would have been treated any differently in the same circumstances,” employment judge Catrin Lewis said.
Because of her poor performance during the training programme, Ms. Massengo was not given the position of junior perfumer.
“We have not discovered any reliable data from which we might conclude that their evaluations were impacted in any manner by her age.”
We are certain that CPL Aromas was within his right to infer negative consequences from Ms. Massengo’s actions by deleting her sent emails as proof that she was trying to hide anything and understood what she was doing was improper.
In addition to violating the regulation, Ms. Massengo allegedly made an effort to hide her actions. CPL Aromas could no longer be counted on to have faith and confidence in her as a consequence.
We did not determine that Ms. Massengo should not have known that what she was doing was improper because the Handbook was not made available to her.