The Supreme Court case of Glenn v. Fant was a case that was heard in the United States Supreme Court in the year of 1971. The case was brought by the petitioner, Glenn, who was a black man who had been denied a job at a local hospital in the state of Georgia. The respondent in the case was Fant, the hospital administrator. The case was heard by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not the hospital had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Court found that the hospital had indeed violated Title VII by denying Glenn the job based on his race. The Court held that Title VII was applicable to the case and that the hospital had violated the law by denying Glenn the job. The Court also held that the hospital had failed to provide any evidence that the job was denied for any other reason than race. The Court also held that the hospital had failed to provide any evidence that the job was denied for any other reason than race. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of Glenn, finding that the hospital had violated Title VII and ordering the hospital to provide Glenn with the job he had applied for. The case was significant in that it established that Title VII was applicable to private employers and that discrimination based on race was prohibited.

In the Supreme Court case of Glenn v. Fant, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be overturned. He argued that under existing law, an employer is not required to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities unless they can show undue hardship on the business. In this particular case, there was no evidence presented by either party as to whether providing such accommodation would cause any hardship or difficulty for the employer; thus it could not be assumed that providing such accommodation would constitute an undue burden on them. Furthermore, Scalia noted that even if one were to assume without proof that accommodating Mr. Glenn’s disability would impose some sort of burden on his employer, then it still must be proven what kind of “reasonable” accommodation is necessary before any action can be taken against them - something which had yet to occur in this instance. Thus he concluded by asserting that since neither side had provided sufficient evidence regarding what type of reasonable accommodation might have been necessary nor how much effort or expense may have been involved in implementing said accommodations (if any), then summary judgment should not have been granted and instead further proceedings should take place so as to determine these facts before making a final ruling in favor of either party