It's hard to know for sure. Most people who are old enough to remember it know about the Enron/Arthur Andersen scandal. Unless I missed something, I haven't been able to find any evidence that former employees of those companies had any more trouble than normal finding new jobs. In fact, one company even went as far as to bring the Arthur Andersen name back 15 years later.
One difference, of course, is that it was common knowledge that the misconduct (at least at Enron) was limited to upper management and that "low-level" employees were victims, too. In the case of Huawei, though, as far as I can tell, the individual who was arrested for spying in Poland wasn't an especially high-level employee. Some of the news coverage has definitely implied that spying was pervasive and included even relatively low-level employees; if that's the case, then being seen as a participant is a legitimate risk. Even if people know at some level that most people who work for the company were innocent, if people have a negative association even at a subconscious level it could be harmful.
One other thing to consider: Huawei's regulatory troubles introduces a higher risk of layoffs (and other finance-related problems) if Western companies ban them from working in their countries. That could cause them to struggle financially, or to be forced to shut down a large number of projects that were related to banned products.
So yes, there is at least some risk of that happening.