The recent announcement that Facebook Inc. and Apple Inc. will start covering the cost of cryopreservation and egg storage for female employees drew loud praise and sharp criticism. I can understand the reaction of both camps. On the one hand, it feels like a pivotal moment for women in the workplace. It wasn’t long ago that the prevailing norms in Corporate America prevented women from leaving the home to advance meaningful professional careers. Fast forward to 2014 and we’re seeing policies aimed at attracting women to the workplace and keeping them there. As an attorney with a demanding schedule and two young children at home, I applaud Apple and Facebook for providing resources to women faced with difficult choices.

But Apple and Facebook’s policies also raise important questions about the role that employers should — or should not — play in women’s reproductive decisions. As an employment lawyer, the egg-freezing benefit seems fraught with peril for these presumably well-meaning employers. If interpreted as tacit encouragement to pursue cryopreservation, or as a warning that child-rearing could jeopardize opportunities for advancement, the policy would expose these companies to risk for alleged discrimination.

As practice group leader for Hinckley Allen’s labor and employment group, I’m tasked with scrutinizing every facet of an employer’s relationship with its employees and recommending strategies that mitigate the opportunity for discriminatory claims, either real or perceived. Accusations of workplace discrimination, which hit unprecedented levels during the Great Recession, are top of mind for today’s general counsel, and for good reason. Discrimination complaints are extremely common and highly disruptive; even claims that don’t lead to lawsuits can be damaging, requiring lengthy internal investigations, while harming employee morale and external reputation.

I spend a great deal of time reviewing employee handbooks, contracts and policies to identify compliance issues and to flag any language with an unintended subtext. Only through this comprehensive approach can companies manage their vulnerability to the two broad categories of discrimination lawsuits: those of intent and those of disparate impact.

Intentional discrimination suits involve claims of deliberate discrimination against people on a number of grounds, including race, gender or pregnancy. In the case of Facebook and Apple, a scenario involving intentional discrimination seems slightly far-fetched — it’s hard to imagine a manager imploring an employee to freeze her eggs at the risk of losing her job. It’s less far-fetched however to imagine that over time, employees who freeze their eggs could become more likely to advance than those who choose to raise children mid-career, whether or not the employer had this intention.

Which brings us to the second broad category of discrimination lawsuits: those of disparate impact, involving allegations of employment practices that have no discriminatory intent, yet have a disproportionately negative effect on a certain group. If the cryopreservation benefit can be shown to create an unspoken pressure that steers women toward delaying motherhood, or if it leads to a situation in which working mothers advance more slowly than their childless counterparts, or if it has the effect of discouraging women from remaining in the workplace all together, a discrimination claim would be viable. Though disparate impact claims are generally more difficult to argue, requiring statistics, data and number crunching to substantiate claims, the news from Facebook and Apple also comes at a time of at a time of heightened scrutiny around pregnancy-related discrimination.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces laws against workplace discrimination, has announced plans to focus on “pregnancy-related limitations” as part of its current strategic enforcement plan. Though it’s still early to say what type of impact the egg-freezing benefit will have at Apple and Facebook, I suspect the EEOC may not view the developments as entirely positive.

So how can companies committed to advancing and retaining top talent endorse the egg-freezing option, while preventing discrimination — either intended or unintended, perceived or real — to take root? In my view, benefits including coverage for cryopreservation must be communicated through carefully considered messaging and supported through robust processes that monitor the effect that the policy has on employee demographics and advancements.

One critical avenue to consider is employee handbooks. An effectively worded handbook can go a long way in telegraphing important messages to employees and their managers — and in minimizing employer liability. Careful thought should be given to how an egg-freezing benefit is announced. Any language should emphasize that the benefit is rooted in a mission to empower female employees with a choice; it is not meant to signal limited opportunities for those women who choose to have a family.

Additionally, employers who implement the benefit should monitor for trends and changes in the promotion timelines of its female employees and intervene if any unintended impacts take shape. Does a statistical analysis show that women who do not have families advance further or faster in the workplace? Are women with children seeing more limited opportunities? If the answer is yes, then a creative plaintiff attorney would not have much difficulty arguing that the company discriminates against women who choose to have children, as evidenced by the company’s egg-freezing policy, which can be viewed as an overt attempt to discourage pregnancy.

Because its Apple and Facebook taking such a public stance on fertility benefits, it won’t be long until other companies follow suit with their own egg-freezing policies. And while this may signal a move in the right direction for women in the workplace, companies must both walk-the-walk and talk-the-talk. Companies must be careful to convey the right message when announcing the benefit to its employees, examine the policy’s impact and consider other practices with an aim toward bringing diversity and equality in the workplace.

Consider Sweden, where a gender-neutral paid parental-leave allowance makes it easier for both sexes to balance work and family life. Because Sweden’s mothers and fathers are encouraged to share the responsibilities of work and family life, it’s no surprise that Sweden ranks in the top five of the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index. Companies committed to diversity and equality in the workplace should only extend egg-freezing coverage to its female employees if they’re also prepared to offer comprehensive parental benefits to working fathers as well.

Though we’re far away from anything resembling the Nordic welfare model, I’m encouraged by the very public efforts of Facebook and Apple to empower women in technology, a perennially male-dominated sector. Through thoughtful dialogue with employees around the benefit and vigilance in its implementation, egg-freezing may very well help companies retain top female talent, while helping women to do their best work.

—By Christina L. Lewis, Hinckley Allen

Christina Lewis is a partner in Hinckley Allen’s Boston office, where she is practice group leader for the firm’s labor and employment group.