Back in September 2015, a federal judge certified a class-action lawsuit against Uber—if the plaintiffs are successful, former and current California drivers would be declared as employees rather than contractors. If Uber loses, it would represent a sea change for the company and for the entire so-called "sharing economy."

Uber’s newfound employees would be entitled to a number of benefits under federal law. Those perks would include, among others, unemployment benefits, workers’ compensation, the right to unionize, and most importantly, the right to seek reimbursement for mileage and tips. Those added expenses would certainly factor into Uber’s estimated valuation of $63 billion.

Since the case, O’Connor v. Uber, was certified, the startup has been hit with an additional 13 federal proposed class-action lawsuits nationwide—most of which have been filed by one New York-based firm. One case in Philadelphia was filed as recently as this month. These cases appear to be interested in riding the coattails of one successful suit, which could mean big bucks for attorneys and expanded benefits for Uber drivers.

"I think our general strategy is to mimic what’s going on in California," Paul Napoli told Ars. "We think that there should be a uniform approach throughout the country that applies federal law to not just California."

Napoli has previously been best-known for being one of the top attorneys in the September 11 first responders case. His wife, Marie Napoli, is the one of the signing attorneys on many of the civil complaints.

"I think we are filed in about 11 states in total and we’ll continue to expand on it," Paul Napoli added. "I think we want to begin with these states. O’Connor has certainly been instrumental, and a lot of his rulings are going to help lead the way in other jurisdictions."

Napoli recently tried to get their cases lumped together with O’Connor in what’s known as a "multidistrict litigation," but that move was denied. Neither Uber’s attorneys nor the O’Connor attorneys wanted that grouping to go forward.

Paul Napoli put a positive spin on that denial: "While we favor consolidation, sometimes it's better to have 10 or 11 opportunities as opposed to one in front of a single judge—we think it’s actually going to be to our benefit."

Uber did not respond to Ars’ request for comment.

From coast to coast

The 13 cases that Ars located have been filed in various states, including New York, Ohio, Maryland, Florida, Arizona, and Pennsylvania.

One of the cases brought by the Napoli firm involves a Philadelphia UberX driver, Joseph DiNofa. According to the complaint in DiNofa v. Uber, the plaintiff only made $80 per week after deducting gas, tolls, lease payments, and car repairs.

DiNofa and his attorneys allege:

Uber also unilaterally sets the fares for all rides, and drivers are required to charge the cost determined solely by Uber. In addition, all drivers for Uber must maintain an average customer star evaluation of at least 4.5 out of a possible 5 stars. Instructions on how to improve one’s star rating are given to drivers who fall below this average in any given week. If a driver fails to maintain an average customer rating of 4.5, Uber will deactivate his or her ability to use the application to pick up customers, an action tantamount to terminating the driver "at will," a hallmark of an employee-employer relationship. As a result of its misclassification, Uber failed to provide Plaintiffs and other similarly aggrieved employees with itemized wage statements, minimum wages, lawful meal and rest periods, and reimbursement for necessary employment related expenses. Uber also failed to keep accurate payroll records showing aggrieved employees’ hours worked and wages paid. Uber also retained all gratuities owed to aggrieved employees despite representing

to its customers and advertising that gratuity is included in the total cost of the car service. Uber specifically advertises to its customers that tips are included in the cost of the fare.

Similarly, Illinois plaintiff Imran Sandozi claims that he only made $100-$200 per week. In yet another Napoli-brought case filed in Ohio, Bruster v. Uber , the UberX driver claims that he only made $5 per hour after expenses, or "significantly less than the state minimum wage."

Michael LeRoy, a labor law professor at the University of Illinois, told Ars that this scattershot approach suggests that these cases are trying to use state labor law as a way to "lead a very large class."

"The Bruster case is a case in point," he e-mailed. "Allegations such as tortious interference with business, breach of contract, promissory estoppel (implied contract; oral promises seeking detrimental reliance), and the other counts all have a specific meaning in Ohio. Yes, most other states have similar laws, but this complaint says to me that the filing attorney wants to corral all the Ohio cases first—and perhaps expand beyond the class to drivers outside of Ohio, once his class receives certification."

Napoli says that these suits are a means to obtain justice for drivers. "It’s a new age—100 years ago you had labor unions for factories and manufacturing," he said.

"Now it’s a new wave because of the technology that’s developed and ensuring that the labor laws are complied with," he continued. "The laws need to keep pace with the technology. And I think that that’s what these cases are highlighting. Just because these people are communicating with iPhones and Androids doesn’t change the responsibility of the employers of these workers themselves."

In the meantime, O’Connor v. Uber’s jury trial date has been set for June 20, 2016 in federal court in San Francisco.