a significant limit to federal law is a duty only falls on private employers of more than 15 staff, or 20 staff for age discrimination. Within these limits, people can bring claims against disparate treatment. In Texas Dept of Community Affairs v Burdine the US Supreme Court held plaintiffs will establish a prima facie case of discrimination for not being hired if they are in a protected group, qualified for a job, but the job is given to someone of a different group. It is then up to an employer to rebut the case, by showing a legitimate reason for not hiring the plaintiff. However, in 1993, this position was altered in St Mary's Honor Center v Hicks where Scalia J held (over the dissent of four justices) that if an employer shows no discriminatory intent, an employee must not only show the reason is a pretext, but show additional evidence that discrimination has taken place. Souter J in dissent, pointed out the majority's approach was "inexplicable in forgiving employers who present false evidence in court". Disparate treatment can be justified under CRA 1964 §2000e-2(e) if an employer shows selecting someone reflects by "religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise." Race is not included. For example, in Dothard v Rawlinson the state of Alabama prohibited women from working as prison guards in "contact" jobs, with close proximity to prisoners. It also had minimum height and weight requirements (5"2 and 120 lbs), which it argued were necessary for proper security. Ms Rawlinson claimed both requirements were unlawful discrimination. A majority of 6 to 3 held that the gender restrictions in contact jobs were a bona fide occupational qualification, because there was a heightened risk of sexual assault, although Stewart J suggested the result might have differed if the prisons were better run. A majority held the height and weight restrictions, while neutral, had a disparate impact on women and were not justified by business necessity. By contrast, in Wilson v Southwest Airlines Co, a Texas District Court held an airline was not entitled to require women only to work as cabin attendants (who were further required to be "dressed in high boots and hot-pants") even if it could show a consumer preference. The essence of the business was transporting passengers, rather than its advertising metaphor