top of page

NH DOJ Uses Pronoun Refusal as Evidence of Hate Crime Motive in Concord Assault Case

ree

CONCORD, NH — Newly filed court documents from Attorney General John Formella’s office reveal that the New Hampshire Department of Justice is citing a defendant’s refusal to use a transgender individual’s preferred pronouns as evidence that an assault was motivated by bias — marking one of the first such cases brought under the state’s Civil Rights Act to hinge partly on language used after the alleged incident.


The case involves Travis Lufkin, accused of striking a transgender gas station employee in Concord in May 2024. Prosecutors say the altercation followed a verbal exchange in which Lufkin allegedly used a homophobic slur before hitting the victim.


In filings submitted last week, the state argued that Lufkin’s “intentional misgendering” of the victim when later speaking with police — even after being informed of her gender identity — helped prove that his conduct was motivated by gender identity or sexual orientation bias. The DOJ wrote that “the timing of the assault, immediately after [a] homophobic slur … and Defendant’s statements to police after the assault demonstrates that Defendant’s conduct was motivated by gender identity and/or sexual orientation.”


Critics argue the filing represents a dangerous expansion of hate-crime enforcement into the realm of personal belief and compelled speech.


“When someone shouts ‘Free Palestine’ while shooting up a country club, the DOJ says they can’t determine motive,” one observer noted. “But when someone refuses to use made-up pronouns, they will be prosecuted for a hate crime.”


The Civil Rights Act, RSA 354-B, allows the Attorney General to seek civil penalties and injunctions against individuals whose actions are motivated by hostility toward a protected class. While the state’s motion focuses on the physical assault, its reliance on post-incident language as proof of bias raises broader questions about how the law will be applied.


Civil liberties advocates warn that equating refusal to adopt gendered terminology with evidence of unlawful bias could chill free expression and religious conscience. Others, including LGBTQ organizations, counter that deliberate misgendering can constitute a form of harassment that helps establish motive in hate-based crimes.

The case, State v. Lufkin, remains pending in Merrimack County Superior Court.



 
 
 
bottom of page