A sometimes overlooked nuance of current job accommodation requirements was highlighted by a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decision: an employee or job applicant seeking accommodation based on a disability or a religious conviction is only entitled to a reasonable accommodation, not necessarily the accommodation of his or her choosing.

In Porter v. Chicago, a Christian employee of the city's police department sought a scheduling change, so she would not have to work on Sunday, the day she attended morning church services.  The city responded by offering to change her regular Sunday 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. shift to a Sunday shift that started at 3:30 p.m. and ended at 11:30 p.m. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that the city's offer constituted a reasonable accommodation under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, even if it was not the option that the plaintiff preferred, since it would enable her to fulfill her religious obligations.

The accommodation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act are interpreted similarly.

Interestingly, however, proposed legislation--the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (S. 3565, H.R. 5647)--that would extend job accommodation rights based on pregnancy is not so limited, and instead would expressly provide that a pregnant employee or job applicant could not be forced to "accept an accommodation that such applicant or employee chooses not to accept."  The Senate bill, which has nine co-sponsors, was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions while the House bill, which has 112 co-sponsors, was referred to that chamber's Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions.

Other recent EEO developments include:

• EEOC released its latest performance and accountability report, which shows that the agency recovered a record-high $365.4 million for private sector employment discrimination claimants in fiscal year 2012, and also reduced its charge backlog by nearly 10 percent for a second straight year.

• The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a potentially landmark case addressing the issue of who is a "supervisor" for purposes of Title VII.

• A divided Sixth Circuit vacated a $2.6 million attorneys' fees award against EEOC and ruled that the commission is permitted to pursue pattern-or-practice claims under Section 706 of Title VII, even though such claims are only mentioned in Section 707 of the statute.

• Noted New York steakhouse Sparks settled an EEOC male-on-male sexual harassment case for $600,000.