Language diversity has been increasing again throughout the United States since 1965, partly the result of major changes in immigration, foreign language and civil rights laws. As a result of this diversity, language issues have arisen in the workplace requiring policy attention. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adopted rules in 1979 governing when and under what conditions these workplace policies could require that only English be spoken by employees. Consent agreements and litigation brought under this ''English-only'' rule have resulted in a number of decisions that have assumed certain things about bilingualism and bilinguals, as well as about language attitudes and monolinguals. While not all of these decisions have been uniform, some of these assumptions have raised the following questions: (l) How does bilingual speech affect work performance? and (2) To what extent do English monolinguals need ''protection'' from hearing non- English languages around them (whether as clients or employees in a work situation)? This paper reviews a selected case of an urban, university based hospital, which successfully solved a conflict over an English-only rule, to look at some of these questions. It found, among other things, that language attitudes were a key component to inter group relations and language status. Non-English languages were the focus of unfounded English monolingual ''fears'' and ''paranoia. '' A workshop taking many cross-cultural communication strategies can be successful in improving these relationships.