I agree this engineer will probably lose the case because Apple has better lawyers, but I believe your underlying argument to be incorrect. If your manager asks you to violate company policy, then the correct response is to not violate company policy and instead contact HR/legal. Otherwise, saying “my manager made me do it” will not save you if heads start to roll. This applies to both policies that are strictly internal as well as policies that are due to an underlying law. When it comes down to it, neither you nor your manager actually interpret laws or internal policies.

No, he will lose the case because because when you are hired to, say, be an auto technician, then you can't refuse to do oil changes when your boss tells you to to do them because you are convinced the customer would really be better off in an EV, and that this is important for the environment, and you want to make a moral stance.

If you want to take a moral stance to not do your job, you quit. You can give a long, eloquent speech if you want. You can write an essay about why you quit. You can start a gofundme. But you do not get to refuse to do your job and keep drawing a salary. That is trying to make a moral stance without a cost. It has nothing to do with Apple having better lawyers, and everything to do with the engineer not understanding what a job is, or what a moral stance is. The moral stance part is where you forego the income from doing something you disagree with, not refusing to do it and getting to keep the income.

The article says he did contact legal and I guess they declined to intervene.

HR will also not protect you "if heads start to roll". They're there to protect the company.