Definition: Read the given text and if it has abusive content then indicate via "yes". Otherwise indicate via"no". 
We consider the content to be abusive if it contains any of the following instances: (1) Identity Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which contains a negative statement made against an identity. An identity is a social category that relates to a fundamental aspect of individuals community, socio-demographics, position or self-representation) (2) Affiliation Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which express negativity against an affiliation. We define affiliation as a (more or less) voluntary association with a collective. Affiliations include but are not limited to: memberships (e.g. Trade unions), party memberships (e.g. Republicans), political affiliations (e.g. Right-wing people) and occupations (e.g. Doctors).) (3) Person Directed Abuse (e.g., Content which directs negativity against an identifiable person, who is either part of the conversation thread or is named. Person-directed abuse includes serious character based attacks, such as accusing the person of lying, as well as aggression, insults and menacing language.) and (4) Counter Speech (e.g., Content which challenges, condemns or calls out the abusive language of others.). Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].
Input: Here's [another article] where she does an interview and talks about how she went to the doctor and he gave her sleeping pills, if you're into that sort of thing.  It does also have a response from the company, which is interesting:    >The incident at the Sterling Heights Assembly Plant in February was the  subject of an exhaustive investigation conducted by external  investigators. Although we have been unable to identify the person  responsible, if and when that person is identified, their relationship  with the company will be terminated. FCA will continue to conduct  focused training to underscore the value of diversity and inclusion.  This type of behavior will simply not be tolerated.    They're either accepting that it was intended to be a noose, or just trying to hand-wave the case away.  I can see a million reasons why you'd fire somebody for improper use or equipment or leaving a safety hazard like that laying around, so it's easy enough to say "whoever did it will be fired", then change subjects and mention that you have a zero tolerance policy for harassment, even if it's unrelated to the reasons why you'd fire the person who left the rope out.

no