reliance. However, when Sandel received the May 2001 letter, he had no employment offers or pending interviews and had not identified any potential employers. Failure to seek another job is insufficient because Sandel must show that but for the letter, he would have stopped working for ATP, and he presented no such evidence. See English, 660 S.W.2d at 524; Miller, 229 S.W.3d at 379; see also First Nat’l Bankshares of Beloit, Inc. v. Geisel, 853 F.Supp. 1344, 1356 (D.Kan.1994) (concluding that evidence that plaintiffs relied on promise of stock options in declining to pursue other employment opportunities was insufficient to raise fact issue on detrimental reliance element of promissory es-toppel defense); cf. Johnson & Johnson Med., Inc. v. Sanchez, 924 S.W.2d 925, 930 (Tex.1996) (<HOLDING>); Miller, 229 S.W.3d at 379 (finding no
holding that employees claim of detrimental reliance on employers alleged representations should be dismissed because employee was atwill holding that employers promise to recall laid off employee could not support fraud claim because employee did not present any evidence of detrimental reliance such as turning down other offers of employment holding that although incorrect drug report was detrimental to employee employee had no claim against hospital because the report was not intended to primarily or directly benefit the employee holding that an employers promise to pay a bonus to an employee was not enforceable where the employee was already obligated under a written contract to perform the services in question holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee