Tzvia Wexler v. Charmaine Hawkins

── Tzvia Wexler v. Charmaine Hawkins ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 24-2320, 24-2368, and 24-2557 TZVIA WEXLER v. CHARMAINE HAWKINS; JAMES KOENIG Tzvia Wexler, Appellant in No. 24-2368 Charmaine Hawkins; James Koenig, Appellants in Nos. 24-2320, 24-2557 _____________________________ Appeal from the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe, No. 2:19-cv-05760 Before: BIBAS, PORTER, and BOVE, Circuit Judges Argued Jan. 28, 2026; Decided Apr. 22, 2026 _____________________________ OPINION OF THE COURT BOVE, Circuit Judge. An officer from the Philadelphia Police Department, Defendant Charmaine Hawkins, used a choke hold on Plaintiff Tzvia Wexler in 2019. Both women suffered minor injuries during the exchange. When Plaintiff asked for medical treatment and the officer’s identifying information, Defendant Hawkins retaliated by pursuing escalated charges. Based on Defendant Hawkins’ account of the incident, Detective James Koenig—the second Defendant here—recommended that Plaintiff be charged with five crimes, including an aggravated-assault felony. Plaintiff was detained overnight. She was released early the next morning. The charges were later dismissed. Plaintiff sued under § 1983 and Pennsylvania law. She won a trial against Defendants Hawkins and Koenig. The jury awarded her $6,000 in compensatory damages, with $4,000 apportioned to Defendant Hawkins, and $1 million in punitive damages, which the jury split evenly between the two Defendants. In response to Defendants’ post-trial motions, the District Court reduced the punitive damages by half. On appeal, Defendant Koenig argues that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the charges he recommended against Plaintiff were supported by probable cause. We agree. Defendant Hawkins does not challenge the jury’s findings regarding liability or compensatory damages. But she and Plaintiff cross-appeal the remaining $250,000 of punitive damages. Removed from the emotionally charged trial environment, and applying the due-process “guideposts” established by the Supreme Court, we find the punitive- damages award to be constitutionally excessive. Plaintiff made a modest showing on the reprehensibility guidepost, but the extreme disparity between the punitive and compensatory damages lacks legal and factual support. Using our best judgment, which is all we can do when required to apply this amorphous constitutional test, the punitive damages are reduced to $12,000. We will therefore reverse the judgment against Defendant Koenig, vacate the judgment against Defendant 2 Hawkins, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. The trial lasted five days and included testimony from the parties, Plaintiff’s husband, and another officer who was present at the scene with Defendant Hawkins. In summarizing the trial evidence below, we draw all inferences in favor of Plaintiff. A. On June 9, 2019, Plaintiff planned to ride her bike to a meeting near Rittenhouse Square in Philadelphia. Defendant Hawkins was assigned to crowd control duties on a parade route between Plaintiff and her meeting. Plaintiff started to walk her bike as she approached the crowd from the parade. An officer directed her to cross the route down the street. Plaintiff then encountered Defendant Hawkins. Defendant Hawkins told Plaintiff that she could not continue in the same direction on the street. Plaintiff testified at trial that Defendant Hawkins followed up on verbal instructions by pulling Plaintiff’s bike and sho