I'm always nervous when I see phrasing like this because it all depends on what you mean by "come before". For example, I would love to spend 40+ more hours per week with my family, but I don't. That doesn't mean I put work before my family, it means I love my family enough to provide for them.

Conversely, if I had a job that required 40 hours per week (objectives and culture wise) and I worked 80 hours for the fun of it, then this would be a clear case of putting work before my family. In that case, no, I shouldn't be doing it.

The question here is which category (if either) does this fall into? It seems as though the issue here is the employee had a non-disclosure condition of employment, which he violated. The "help" he provided his daughter may have helped her financially, though I suspect ego was the primary driver for both the employee and the daughter. As unpopular as it may be to side with the big-bad-company, I think Apple acted appropriately here.