See Complaint, Exh. 3. After consulting with counsel, he removed the reference to FELA claims, signed the release, and returned it. The redacted release was not acceptable to Conrail, and plaintiff decided not to execute the original. Following this impasse, plaintiff filed suit in state court on the grounds of promissory estoppel and fraud. Order, April 13, 2000.
Defendant now moves for summary judgment on the equitable estoppel claim.
Before discussing the motion, two issues raised in plaintiff's response need to be resolved. Order, April 13, 2000. The second issue is whether the release sought by Conrail was in violation of the FELA inasmuch as plaintiff would have been required to forego his pending FELA claim in exchange for the plan benefits . Any contract, . . . Here, unlike Wicker , the claim was pending prior to the proposed release, and, therefore, the risks involved were known to the parties.